The Evening standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1910-1913, 1910-11-17

lGed IN Aprll, 1903. II manufacturer
no glass but was purely a selling
agency buying the entlr, output oil
I fifty or more manufacturers Of win
cow glass IN some ten different states.
The agreement between 1t and the
manufacturers by which IL bought
provided no glass shoull he sold bv
The latter cHccp; TO the Imperial Win
dow Glass company. The stock of
'hc company was diyI1el amung the
manufacturers.
Large Advance in Prices.
II was not until the company had
hcught into combination With H. un-
DER such contracts. manufacturers of
a1out uincty-Seycn per cent of the
entire hand blcwn win low glass man
jiactured in the United States, that
II was determined 10 commence bus
mess. 1t Oegan business IN January
1910.
BY October. /, 1910, prices had
been advanced seventy per cent over
what they were In April, 1907 The
evidence showed that In the FIRST
uree months OF Its operation the
Imperial company earned net profits
equal 10 its eltirc capital stock
The largest advance In prices was
subsequent to this initial period and
Tue evidence showed that In the ten
months Of its business tie comblna-
il3n cleared about one million dollars.
or four hundred per cent on it's cap
l,sl stock
Leased Fifteen Factories.
1t leased fifteen factories at high
irartal for tho sole purpose of keep
inG them closed and removing their
product from the market Its ex.
benses during this perioC were S13S.-
pOp for one year lenses and watohmen
Of these closed down factories.
Indictments were fouud against
The fifteen directors and officers OF
ne companies. each one Of whom was
reither president or officers of one
company. who had entered Hto agree.
lnents 10 sell Jneir produc, only to
the imperial company. Demurrers TO
ne Indictments were ovcrruled aud
the case was set for trial in Pitts
burg on Monday, Nov IL
"A few days previously oYertures
we're made to the attorney general
on behalf uf the defendants suggest
ing that they would plead nolle con
teEdre. the subtle equivalent OF a
Flea OF guilty. provided the attorney
general would agree TO recommend
10 the court that only tines be In.
nictcd
Attorney-oeneraI Refuses Recon-.
mendatlon.
This was refused as the attorney.
general considered, and so stated to
the defendants counsel, that the com,
bInatlon was one of the most nagrant
and intentional violations Of the an i.
trust law which had been brought to
his attention
The attorney further informed coun.
sci that he had given directions to
lave the cases pressed for conviction
and insisted on the imposition OF
sentences OF imprisonment upon the
principal offenders in case of conyic-
ton
The following day the defendants
appeared in court in P!ttsburg and
iEterposed pleas of nolle contendre.
and despite the opposition of The dis
t'ict attorney and Special Assistant
Grosvenor. the court only fined each
OF the individual defendants $500 AMI
the corporation 81 800 and costs.
Earned 400 Per Cent Profit.
1T was stated to the court that
the combination had been dissolved
and this was one Of the considera.
tions upon which the court let tho de.
PENDANTS go merely on fine. IL also
was stated that the combination in its
existence had increased the wages
OF the glass blowers, and as a matter
Of fact directors minutes disclosed
the adoption OF one resolution in
creasing wages twelve and half per
cont
When this was carried out. dil
no, appear but ut all events. rs the
combination had earned about four
hundred per cent profit cn its cap
ital stock during the year of its ex-
istence. an increase OF twelve and
ore'half per cent in wares can hardly
be regarded as go entirely dependent
upon the continued existence OF the
combination as 10 justify q reduction
OF thirty per cen in wages upon the
dissolution OF the combination.
IF the rumorcd action should prove
to be substantiated by fact, it would
indicate the very misia6on leniency
on the part OF the court IN imposing
sentence. which il Is hoped would not
oe followed on any other similar oc.
.ASion