The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-06-22
.DU POINT POWDER COMPANY HELD ID
 BE ILLEGAL TRUST
Declared Combination Shall Be EnjOined and
 Dissolved
HAS MONOPOLIZED COMMERCE IN POWDER
United States District Court of Della ware Fixes October Is AS Date To Consider Plan To Dis
 solve Alleged Trust

oOlf0 1A1AN6S0 ASS
 Wilmington, Del, June 2.-The United States circuit court for the district O. Delaware today handed down a decision declaring that the alleged powder trust which is dominated by the E. I. DuPont De Ne Mours company is a combination in restraint of interstate commerce il powder and other explosives, In viola ton of section one of the Sherman anti trust law; that 1t attempted to monop olize and has monopolized part of sucl commerce in violation of sections of tn same law and decreeing that the com bination shall be enjoined from contlnu ing this violation and that 1t shall b dissolved,
 The action against the powder trus was begun by the government in 19O and was directed against 43 corporate and individual defendants. The suit as to l; of the defendants was dismissed because some of the concerns are out of existence or it was not shown that they were parties to the combination.
 The court, in an interlocutory decree, fixed October 16 as the date to hear both sides in the action as to the na- ture of the injunction to be granted, and consider a '.plan for dssolving said com- bination, which shall be submitted by the petitioner and the defendant or any of them, to the end that this court may ascertain which will not deprive the de- fendants of the opportunity to recreate out of the clements now composing said combination, a new condition which shal be honestly in harmony with and not repugnant to the law
 This follows to some extent the de crees issued by the United States su- preme court in the Standard oil and the Tobacco cases.
 There are IS corporate and 15 individ- ual defendants declared to be in the il- legal combination. A majority of the in tlividual members of the DuPont family all of whom except Edmund G. Buckner, are directors of the DuPont company. or ganized in 1902, and the DePont company ganized in 1902 and the DuPont company as Cole is also president of both of them Buchener is an active director of the In. ternational Smokeless Powder anC Chemical company. The corporate defend. ants are:
 Corporate Defendants
 The Hazard Powder company, Laflii & Rand Powder company, Eastern Dyna mite company Fairmont Powder com pany International Smokeless Powde, and Chemical company, Judson Dynamt, and Powder company, Delaware Securi ties company, Delaware Investment com pany, California Investment company, E I. DuPon, De Ne Mours & Co.,, of Penn sylvana, DuPont International Powder company, k. l. DuPont De Mours Pow der Go.
 The only members of the DuPont fam fly mentioned in the suit who is not in cluded among those found to be vioat ing the law, is Henry DuPont, one of the United States senators from Delaware In his case the court found that in June 1906, a year before the suit was begun "he resigned all his official positions 1T the defendant corporations and thai since that time he has had no connec- ton with the management of any of the defendant corporations"
 The decision, written by Judge w. NJ Lanning, and concurred in by Judge George Gray and Joseph Buffing, goes into the history of interstate commerce in gun powder and other explosives back as far as 1872, when the government charged the first trade agreement was entered into.
 The court found that the Du Pom company of 1903 and the Eastern Dyna. mite company controlled by the Dl Fonts had acquired control of GA diff ferent corporations between April, 1904 ,,, to be dissolved. The court summarize. the numerous companies controlled by the Du Pont company, organized in 1902 and the Du Pont company, organized il 1903, and then discusses whether tn, combination was obnoxious to the pro visions of the Sherman anti trust ac and comes to this conclusions:
 Tt matters not whether the combina tion be in the form of a trade associa, tion or a corporation if it arbitraril, uses its power to force weaker com petitors out of business or to coerc, them into a sale of union with the com bination, it puts the restraint upon in terstate commerce and monopolizes O attempts to monopolize a part of tha commerce in a sense that violates tn antitrust act"
 The court finds that the case in han is obnoxious to the antitrust law an then takes up the nature of the fina decree 1t shall issue. On this the cour is guided largely by the action take by the supreme court In the Standar Oil and tobacco cases.
 ITO stop the business of the combin ation immediately" the court says might be attended with very disastrou consequences. The defendants, or som of them, for example, furnish militar orJn ta Init To States government. We understan also that they furnish explosives use in the construction of the Panam canal Their liability to continue so t do should not be destroyed by the ex piration of a reasonable time for ad justing their business to the change conditions"