New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-10-07
COAL ROADS FILE BRIEFS
Case Up on Appeal of Govern
ment To BE Armed Wednesday.

III" anthracite railroads lied their hr1etS
yesterday In the United States Supreme
Court in the Coal Trust case. The case
VIII be argued on Wednesday.
The suit was brought in the United
States Circuit Court. in Philadelphia, IN
der the Sherman antitrust act, charging
the Reading. Lehigh Valley. Lackawanna.
Erie. Central of New Jersey and Susque-
hanna q Western railroads. and the large
coal companies which these railroads con-
troll with conspiracy in violation Of the
act The governments bill Of complaint,
which was fled In 1907 under the direction
Of Attorney General Bonaparte, makes six
separate charges
The first broad charge IS that the rail-
roads are in general conspiracy 10 con-
troll and restrain the production trans
portation and sale OF anthracite coal. Tho
Circuit iudges-Gray. Burlington and Ian
ring-who heard the case unanimously held
that no such conspiracy existed. The gov
ernmeuts appeal brings this decision UP
for review IN the Supreme Court.
The government charged also that the
purchase in 1858 by the Erie Railroad OF
the stock OF the Susquehanna & Western
was against the antitrust act. as it re-
stricted competition between two parallel
and competing lines. Also, that the Read
iEg's purchase. in 1901. OF stock of the
Central Railroad Of New Jersey was viola
tive OF the act, in the same way, and that
the Erie's purchase. in 1899. OF the Pc. n
sylvania Coal Company was restrictive c.
commerce. The allegation was also made
by the government that these three trans
actions were all carried out in furtherance
Of a general plan OF all the defendants to
control the coal business The three Cir
cult judges unanimously found against the
government on these charges, holding that
they were legal acts. The government also
appeals from this decision.
a fifth charge in the bill is against tire
purchases of coal by the large railroad
coal companies from the smaller producers
having collieries along the lines Of de
several railroads. under the so-called % per
cent contracts. The claim of the govern
ment is that these g. per cent contracts,
about forty in number have all been made
to carry out the general scheme Of con-
troll, and also that each OF the contracts
is in itself undulv restrictive OF trade. In
the Circuit Court the judges were divided
on this subject Judges Graz and tanning
dismissed the charge but Judge Burlington
dissented. The government appeals also
Of this point.
The other charge relates 10 the Temple
Iron transaction. In 1899 Simpson & Wat
k,ns sold eight colieries which they con-
trolled to the Temple Iron Company, and
several OF the anthracite railroads fur
nished the money by taking the stocks and
bonds OF the Temple Iron Company. It is
alleged that this was done 20 prevent an
other tilewater railroad from being built,
and that interstate commerce was thereby
restrained, in violation Of the act. Judges
Gray and Burlington decided that this
transaction was in violation Of the act.
and Judge tanning dissented. The de-
PENDANTS have appealed on this single point
20 the Supreme Court.
On the argument in the Supreme Court
the Reading companies VIII be represented
by John C. Johnson and Charles Heebner,
OF Philadelphia; the Lehigh valley by
Frank H. Plat, Of New York; the Erie, by
Adelbert Moot. Of Buffalo; the Central
Railroad Of New Jersey. by Robert ". d.
Forest and Jackson Z. Reynolds. OF New
York; the Lackawanna, by William 8. Jen-
ney, Of New York, and some Of the pro-
ducers under S. per cent contracts, by
James Il. TOrrey. Of Scranton.