Daily Kennebec journal., 1911-01-05
|0f United States Hears
Medical ''Cui Rates" Case.
DR.. Miles Medical Co. Contends
Breach Ct Contract.
John D. Park ( Sons Co. As Defend.
ant Files Brief.

Washington. Jan. 4.-Do contract,
to prevent ''cut rates" in proprietary
medicines violate the Sherman anti
trust law or the common law in re.
stra;nt of trade.
That question WAS argued touay be
fore the supreme Court of the United
states. Upon the decision of the Court
is cad to depend the continuation of
cut rates" in proprietary medicines IN
the Crited States. 1t probably will be-
several weeks before the court viii an
nouHce its decision.
Tie question MAS brought before the
court by the DR. Miles Medical Com
pihN Of Ellihart, lndiana. \ few
years ago. that company entered into
certain contracts with dealers in medi
clntS throushout the country. These
were not contracts OF sale, So the com
pony row contends but contracts of
consignment. under which the dealers
odd not become the owners of the med
ieines. but did become gents of the
company. one of the Conditions Of the
contracts Was that the dealers should
sell only to certain persons and az
certain prices.
john j.. Park ard Sons COMPANY. of
Cincinnati. Ohio, did not enter into !
contract with the Or. Niles Medica,
Company. hut thc latter charges the
Cincinnati firm with inducing others
who diu Inetiie such contracts TO break
me conditions concerning persons and
hfice. The manufacturing company
H'eht into the courts asking for an in
junction against the Cincinnati firm IL
pr. 1t from procuring contract
violations and from selling the medi.
cine Il. cut rates.
Justice Iurton, then on the circuit
bench. "nnGunced the opinion of the
Unit. d States Circuit Court Of Appeals
for the sixth Circait, in which the in
junction requested by the manufactur-
ei was denied. The case was appealed
to the supreme Court. and Frank f
Reed and Edward :. Rogers present
cd a brief i'll support OF the POSITION
taken Ey the DR.. Miles Medical Com
pany. Alton h. Parker and William ]
Snroder filed IL brief for the John D
Park & Sons Company.
In ,he brief for tle manufacturer. il
was urged that the lower court had
erred IN hC.ding that even ii the con
rae is were construed as contracts of
consignment or agency that they were
YGid because in restra int of trade, both
It common law and under the Sher-
nan antitrust law.
IN the first place it WAS argued in
tile brief that contracts between a
principal and an agent were not in
restraint OF trade. whatever condi.
tions we're included in the contracts
Furthermore, it was contended that
he medicines embodied trade secrets
and frc N the Very nature OF the arti-
les the Owner Of the secrets was en- :
.itled to a mr nnp8ly therein.
In the brief prepared by Mr.. Parker
md Mr.. SHREDDER it was argued that
tie courts cou.d not insure an unnec-
essary monopoly in proprietary medi-
clnes 1t was argued that the manu-
facturer was asking for a protection
granted only tG patented articles, with
out subscribing TO ;he condition i'm
rosed upon patented articles. namely
that they will become available to tn.
,uJ!Ic after few years. Extended ar
r,,ncnts were presented in the brief
u show that the contracts violated ,he
.",nu.on lay and the Sherman act.