The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-06-24
POWDERTRUSTH| HIT
Ordered to Dissolve by
u. S. Court.
SlOO,OOO.OOO IS INVOLVED
Judge Lanning Hands Down De-
cisiOn That Dupont Company
and Allies Violates the
Antitrust Law
slOO.OOO.OOO IS INVOLVED

Wilmington, Del. June EN- an
opinion filed by Judge Lannlng. the
United States circuit court declares
the Dupont Powder company and Its
allied companies. popularity known as
the powder trust. to be an illegal com
bination, and orders that 1t be dis
solved
The decree. which affects interests
estimated at SlOOOOO,00O. is directed
against all the Dupont companies and
the directors thereof OF the forty-one
concerns originally named by the gov
eminent in its suit, twenty-eight are
affected by the decision.
The court has fixed Oct 10 as the
date for hearing arguments as to how
the combination shall be dissolved.
In his decision Judge Lanning de
cdes that a number Of companies
forming the combination have com
mitted certain acts which make Il H.
legal and In violation OF the Sherman
antitrust law.
Judge I.anning heard the case, with
Judge Gray and Judge Burlington. The
trial was held in Wilmington. but the
Philadelphia witnesses, Tor their con
yenience. presented their testimony
before a commissioner who sat in that
city.
Judge tanning was delegated 10
write the courts opinion.
The decision, following closely upon
those OF the supreme court In the to-
bacco and Standard oil cases, Is re
garded as a great victory for the gov
eminent. The trial OF the powder case,
begun in Wilmington in 1907. attracted
widespread attention. Hearings before
United States commissioners were
held in half a dozen cities ana a great
mass OF testimony was taken.
William A. Glasgow. Of Philadelphia,
and James Scarlet, OF Danyille, Pa,
appeared as special counsel for the
government. William II. Button was
VI counsel for the defense.
1t was alleged by the government
that from 1872, when the Dupont con
Germ and other subsidiary companies
formed an association for controlling
the powder industry, until 1907, when
the suit was brought, the so-ca.le ]
trust gained a monopoly Of the trade.
II was also declared that the IN
bination' fixed prices AMI otheswi e
acted in restraint of trade All tlese
charges were denied by the company,
through it's chief counsel. former Sen
ator Spooner. OF Wisconsin, who made
the chief argument for the Dupont
and its allied companies. whose mum
Der was fixed at sixteen by the fed.
eral government
The defendants We're the +. |. Dl-
pont de Nemours Powder company and
sixteen associated companies.
A final decree is entered wiki re-
spect to fifteen OF the defendants in
that the petition fled by the govern
ment against them asking that they be
adjudged acting In restraint Of trade,
is dismissed, these defendants being
the Aetna Powder company. Miami
Powder company. American Powder
mills, Equitable Powder Manufac ur-
ing company, Austin Powder company,
Anthony Powder company, King Pow
der company, limited; American Z. c.
and Schultze Gunpowder company,
Peyton Chemical company Henry A.
Dupont. Henry F. Baldwin. California;
Powder works, Conemaugh Powder
company. Metropolitan Powder com
pany and E. /. Dupont company, Of
Aug /. 1903.
The opinion holds that the remain
ing twenty-seven defendants are main
tanning a combination in restraint OF
interstate commerce in powder and
other explosives in violation OF sec
ton Of the act entitled,
AN act to protect trade and com
merce against unlawful restraints and
monopolIes," approved July 2, 1890;
that they have attempted to manopo-
lie and have monopolzed a part OF
such commerce in violation Of section
2 OF that act; that they shall he en-
Joined from continuing said combina-
ton. and that the combination shall be
dissolved