Evening journal., 1911-06-22

/ ally hiiu we are MOI HI llDRTIY. DY
the extraordinary writ OF injunction,
to Interfere with the ownership of
the 490 shares Of the Equitable in the
absence Of proof that that ownership
is employed 10 aid the combination
described In the Governments petit
ton
The opinion then takes up the
transactions and dealings of each Of
the companies which we're finally
merged into the principal dupont
concern, and summarizing the facts as
TO the relations Of the 2S defendants,
finds
System Of Control.
The Hazard Powder Company has
issued 10000 shares, all of which are
owned by the DUPONT Company of 1903
The Latin and Rand Powder Com
pany has issued 10000 shares. of which
at least 5524 shares are owned by the
Delaware Securities Company and al
most the whole Of the stock of the lat
ter company is owned by the DUPONT
Company Of 1908.
THE Fairmont Powder Company has
issued $50 shares, of which the ma
jority is owned by the dupont Com
pany of 1903
The International Smokeless Pow
der and Chemical Company has issued
preferred and common stock to the
amount Of S9,600,000, the majority of
which, through the dupont Interna-
tional Powder Company, is controlled
by the DUPONT Company of 1908.
"The Judson. Dynamite and Powder
| Company has issued 10000 shares,
] which "a Nv DoIff1,.ts4n T,,
vestment Company. The stock of this
latter company is owned by the du-
Pont Company Of 1903
THE Delaware Securities Company,
created for the acquisition of the stock
Of the Latin and Rand Powder Com
pany. has an authorized capital stock
OF 10000 shares, of which a majority
! is owned by the DUPONT Company of
1908.
THE Delaware Investment Company
created for the acquisition of $50
shares of the Moosic Powder Company.
has an authorized capital stock Of 25.-
600 shares. of which the majority is
owned by the DUPONT Company Of 1908.
The California Investment Com
pany. created for the acquisition of
the stock of the Judson Dynamite and
Powder Company, has an authorized
capital stock OF 1000 shares, a major
ity Of which is owned by the DUPONT
Company of 1903
The r. l. DUPONT de Nemours and
Co, of Pennsylvania, has an author
lied capital stock of 10000 shares. the
majority Of which was issued for stock
in subsidiary corporations in Pehnsyl-
vania and passed ultimately into the
control Of the DUPONT Company of 1902,
and then into the control of the dupont
Company of 1903. The DUPONT Inter-
national Powder Company has an au-
thorized capital stock of $4,000, 900
preferred and common. a majority of
which Is owned by the DUPONT Com
pany Of 1908.
"The dupont Company of 1903 is
the owner of the capital stock, or
majority OF the capital stock OF the
corporations above mentioned.
The DUPONT Company OF 1902 is the
owner OF the capital stock of the du-
Pont Company Of 1908, and therefore
controls all IL of the aforementioned
corporations as its subsidiaries.
The defendants, Thomas Coleman
DUPONT. Pierre S. dupont. Alexis 7
DUPONT, Alfred l. DUPONT. Eugene du-
Pont, Eugene p. dupont. Henry F.
DUPONT, Irene DUPONT, Francis I. du-
Pont, Victor dupont. Jr.. Jonathan A.
Haskill. Arthur j. Moxham. Ham
ilton NJ Barksdale and Frank l.. Con-
nahle, are each directors of the du-
Pont Companies of 1902 and 1909 or
Of one of them. Thomas Coleman
DUPONT is also president of both Of
them Edmund G.. Buckner is an ac-
ffNa dfrHRfAr .F -
Smokeless Powder g. Chemical Com
pany.
1T is clear that these 2s defend
ants are associated in a combination
for carrying on interstate commerce
in powder and other explosives"
Form of Combination.
The Judge then takes up the nara
mount question in the case. namely.
whether the combination which he
nndS 70 exist is one that is obnoxious
to the provisions Of the Antitrust
act Reviewing the history Of the
Antitrust legislation he quotes the
recent decisions OF the Supreme
Court as showing that the language
or the Antitrust Act Is not to re-
ceive that literal construction which
| VIII impair rather than enhance free
]
While all this Is true" Judge Ian
ming continues, "the recent decisions
OF the Supreme Court make It eaualIv
clear that combination cannot es-
4 cape merely by the form II assumes
or by the dress II wears. n matters
not whether the combination be in
the form Of a Trust or otherwise.
whether II be in the form OF a trade
association or a corporation. II T.
arbitrarily uses its power to force
weaker competitors out Of business
or to coerce them into a sale to or
union with the combination. II puts a
restraint upon interstate commerce
and monopolizes or attempts to mo-
nopolize a part Of that commerce in =
sense that violates the Antitrust
act"
The Judge then decides that the
decree shall be interlocutorv. eft
will be adjudged that the 2s defend
ants are maintaining a combination
in restraint Of interstate commerce
in violation Of the Antitrust act:
that they shall be enioined from con-
tinuing said combination, and that
the combination shall be dissolved.
The decree will further adiudee
that this court, in order TO obtain
such further information as shall en-
able II 10 frame a final decree which
shall give effective force TO its ad-
Indication, will hear the petitioner
and the defendants on October f6
next as TO the nature Of the injunc-