The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1911-01-05
PATENT MEDICINES
At CUT RATES
y. S. SUPREME COURT no DECIDE
IF MANUFACTURERS MAY
MAKE PRICES.
INJUNCTION WAS DENIED
BY Lower couft--Plaintiff contended
That Retailer Was Merely Al
Agent arguments s1eard
Yesterday.

Washington Jan Ado contract;
to prevent scAt rates" in proprietary
medicines vipiate the Sherman anti
trust law ofEthe common law In re
straint Of trade.
That question was argued today be
fore the supreme court Of the unitea
States. Upon the decision of the
court is said to depend the continua
ton of .'cut rates. In proprietar.
medicines in the United States. i
probably will be several weeks before
the court will announce It's decision
n The question was brought before
the court by tie Dr. Mics Medica
Company, of Elkhart, indiana. A few
years ago, that company entered intf
certain contracts with dealers II
medicines throughout the country
These were not contracts Of sale, sc
the company gov contends, but con
tracts of consignment, under which
the dealers did not become the own
ers Of the medicines, but did become
agents of the company. One Of tae
conditions OF the contracts was tina
the dealers should sell only to certain
persons and at certain prices.
John ID. Park and Sons Company
Of Cincinnati, Ohio, did not enter In
to contract with the DR. Miles
Medical Company, but the la.tc
charges the Cincinnati firm with Id
ducing others who did make sucn
contracts to break the conditions con
cerning persons and price. The manu-
featuring company went into the
courts asking for an injunetto
against the Cincinnati firm to pre-
vent II from procuring contract viola
tons and from selling the medicine AZ
Ant rates
Justice Lurton, then on the circuit
bench, announced the opinion OF tn
United States circuit court of appeals
, for the sixth circuit, in which the IT,
junction requested by the manufac
turer was denied. The case was ap
pealed to the supreme court. am
Frank #. Reed and Edward s. Roger:
presented brief in support of the
position taken by the DR.. Miles Medi
cal Company Alton B. Parker an
William ]. SHREDDER filed brief foi
the John ID, Park and Sons Company
In the brief for the manufactured
it was urged that the lower cour
bad erred in holding that even If tn
contracts were construed as centract
of consignment or agency that they
were void because In restraint ot
trade, both at common law and unde
the Sherman antitrust law
In the first place 1t was argued in
the brief that contracts bet Neen a
principal and an agent were not "a
restraint OF trade, whatever condi
tions were include In the contracts
Furthermore, 1t was contended tha,
the medicines embodied trade secret
and from the very nature of the ar
ticles the owner Of the secrets was
entitled to a monopoly therein.
In the brief prepared by Mr.. Par
ker and Mr.. Schroeder It was argue;
that the courts could not insure ar
unnecessary monopoly in proprletar,
medicines 1t was argued that ttt
manufactures was asking for pTotec
ton granted only to patented articles
without subscribing TO the condition
imposed upon patented articles, name
ly that they will become available tt
the public after few years. Exten |
ed arguments were presented in thG
brief to show that the contracts vic
lated the common law and the Sher
man act.