Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-06-22
POWDER FINDING.
CONTINUED from Page one.)

Delaware In his case the court found
that in June, 1906, a year before the
suit was begun. he resigned all his
official positions in the defendant COM
pany and since that time he has neith-
or real nor nominal connection with
the management of any of the defend
ant corporations"
The decision, which was written by
Judge w. NJ. Lanning and concurred in
by Judges George Gray and Joseph Buff
fington. is a lengthy one and goes into
the history of interstate commerce in gun
powder and other explosives as far back
as 1872. when the government charged
the first trade agreement of manufactur-
ers was entered into The court reviewed
the 1000 pages of evidence taken by Spe-
cial Examiner William G. McHany at
hearings held in Philadelphia. Whining
ton New York. Chicago. Cleveland and
Pittsburg and found that when the suit
was begun the Dupont Co. organized in
1902 controlled in the United States the
trade in: Black blasting powder. Ga per
cent; salepetre blasting powder, Y per
cent; dynamite. 2 per cent; black
sporting powder, Is per cent; smokeless
sporting powder. Ga per cent; smokeless
military and ordnance powder exclusive
Of what the United States government
itself made, 100 per cent. The court also
found that the Dupont Co. of 1908 and the
Eastern Dynamite Co. controlled by the
Duponts acquired control of Ga different
corporations between April 1904, and Sep
tember 1907, and caused them to he dis
solved.
The court summarizes the numerous
companies controlled by the Dupont Co.
organized in 1908 and then discusses
whether the combination it found exists
was obnoxious to the provisions of the
antitrust act. The court says:
LAS enacted, it dhe Sherman anti
trust law) does not condemn every com
bination to prevent competition What
it condemns is every combination i'm re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several states" etc THE re-
cent decisions of the supreme court in
the Standard OH Co VS.. the United
States, and American Tobacco Co. VS..
United States. make is quite clear thai
the language of the antitrust act is not
to receive that literal construction which
will impair rather than enhance freedom
of interstate commerce As we read those
decisions, restraint OIL iiileISldlS tIdbt
and restraint of competition in interstate
trade are not Interchangeable express
sions. There may be under the anti
trust act restraint of competition that
does not amount to restraint of inter
state trade, just as before the passage
of the act there might have been restraint
of competition that did not amount to
common law restraint of trade"
The court then comes to this con
clusion;
1T matters not whether the com
bnation be in the form of trade
association or a corporation If il
arbitrarily uses its power to force
weaker compeptitors out of business
or II coerce them into a sale To or
union with the combination it puts
a restraint upon interstate commerce
and monopolizes or attempts 10 mo-
nopoliZe a part of that commerce in
a sense that violates the antitrust
act"
The court finds that the case in
hand is obnoxious to the antitrust
law and then takes up the nature Of
the final decree it shall issue, In
this the court is guided largely by
in the Standard OIL and Tobacco
cases.
ITO stop the business of the COM
bination Immediately" the court says
might be attended with very dis
astrous consequences. The defend
ants, or some of them, for example
furnish military and ordnance powd-
ers to the United states government.
We understand also, that they furnish
explosives used in the construction of
the Panama canal. Their ability to-
continue so to do should not be de-
stroyed before the expiration of a
reasonable time for adjusting their
business to the changed conditions.
The court then decided to issue the
interlocutory decree to obtain such
information as shall enable it 10 frame
a final decree