Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-11-10
ARGUING ON AN APPEAL
u. $. SUPREME COURT HEARS
CASE OF INDICTED NEW
YORK DEALERS.
ALLECE TRADE RESTRAINT
Government Attempts To show that
Gotten Corner Really Hindcrcd
Free Trading In Staple.

WASHINGTON, Nov 9.-For the
first time the government today asked
the supreme court of the United
States to proclaim the law Of the land
that running "A corner on a stock eX-
change is violation OF the sherman
anti rust act.
The point came up IN the oral ar
gument Of Solicitor General Lehman
In support Of the indictment of James
A. Patton. Eugene G. Scales, Frank b.
Hayes, and William p, Brown, on
charges of conspiracy on January /,
1910 to run a corner on cotton on the
New York cotton exchange.
Arguments In the Indictment had
been declared erroneous by the United
States circuit court for southern New
York and the government was argu-
ing for a reversal. h. j. Spooner ar
gued for an affirmation.
Justice White Asks Questions.
Once or twice In the argument Chief
Justice White asked II the government
considered that a commission to force
down the price of a commodity would
be violation of law as well as com
mission to put the price up as charged
in the present Indictment. Mr.. Leh-
mann said he was not familiar enough
with the market TO reply.
The chief justice also tried to get a
concise answer to his query about the
legality Of planters combining for
higher prices.
Mr.. Lehman in attacking the hold
ing of the circuit court referred to 1t
as saying that no restraint and con-
petition was charged in the indict-
ment. He urged that the Sherman
antitrust law was not directed against
restraint of competition, but against
restraint of trade. He added that even
If 1t had been aimed at restraint OF
caused the price of cotton to be tenn
porary, and when prices were abnor-
mally changed 1t was then a case for
the law to question.
Dealing in Futures.
Chief Justice White asked the So
licitor general If he was not talking
about futures" such as are popularity
regarded as unexOriable contracts by
no delivery ever being intended. Mr..
Lehman replied that he was arguing
that the contracts which the defend
ants were charged with oonspiring 10
make were enforcible under the rules
of the exchange and the law and were
to be distinguished from the bucket
shop" contracts which were unenfor-
chile.
Mr.. Spooner in reply declared that
the counts had been found bad be-
cause they charged restraint Of trade.
The solicitor general, he said, had de-
voted himself almost exclusively to
showing that the defendants had a
monopoly.
Not g word about monopoly, he
asserted. was to be found in the in
dictment. He declared the defend
ants were not charged with ever hav-
Ing bale of cotton and so they could
not have a monopoly of cotton. BY
contracting WIN lne DuNef Oh Iu-
lures" he said the defendants might
have made IT possible for the men
that did have cotton to increase the
price. but surely the defendants were
not to be charged with this.
THE defendants" he argued. were
charged with conspiring to buy cotton
futures. nothing else. These pur-
chases were TO compel demand for
cotton for future delivery. This de-
mand was to cause rise in the prices
Of cotton on the New York cotton ex-
change 1'hat rise In other markets
was to cause the spinners and manu-
facturers to pay excessive prices.
Those excessive prices may have
stopped some traffic in cotton. Some
Of that traffic may have been inter
state traffic. The remoteness Of the
connection between what the defend
ants are alleged tc have done and the
results is too far This sequence Of
causation Is reminiscent of the nursery
Jingle about the house that Jack
built"
Arguments will be concluded tomor-
row.