The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1911-09-14
sfw ANTITRUST CASES
xal he Argued Before United
States Supreme Court
Next Month

, Corner VIII Come Up
., ttrst Inning Before the su-
,o.,t--The "Harf Coal Case"
ID ~rupcnrine Trust Case VIII
uso IT, Heard
-g,on. y. c. Sept. f0.--More
70 .se application of the Sher-
y ...,-.s, law TO the business Of
. ...- axYected from the Supreme
.. me United States shortly
60. o.euing OF its session next
90 several antitrust cases
: ~-..t Tor early consideration By
..s...al. are being relied upon to
.a. court greater opportunity
.r. Afforded in Their ecent Stan
al and tobacco decisions to IN
% vs.. .he law and TO impress upon
W 70 lc..,ry how the court proposes
L.q -hould be enforced.
i'd planned by the court IN the
49,. ..on,h OF it's session TO hear ar
.,. ie the so-called hard coal
- the cotton corner case and
IS, Louis bridge case" Possibly
-. in the session the court may
-.t.- the so-called "turpentine
-, case" Each involves knotty
-s,.rrs growing out Of attempts or
covoruuant to punish alleged
-I.rarars Of the Sherman antitrust
la With the exception Of the So
-,rad "furpcntine case" the Govern
-. has been defeated in the lower
..nrt an! has appealed to the SUI
..ano Court TO uphold its interpreta-
ion Of the law.
Tho hard coal case" constitutes a
0o,srrmcnt attack on the principal
--,F~,rffa cOal-carrying railroads and
.o,1-oWDing companies in Pennsyi-
mi, # is claimed that since 1893
those companies have been parties &c
continuation and conspiracy with
the general object Of ending competl'
zion among themselves in the trans
,or+ation and sale of anthracite Goa
.ra of preventing the sale OF the IN
denendent output in competitor WIFI
tbair own. designing hereby to secure
n themselves a virtual monopoly. Al
tho charges we're over-ruled by the
rower court, the United States Clrcul
Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, ex
cant that concerning one of the so
called little combinations" the lem
nle Iron Company. In that instance
an Injunction was granted.
Nothing like the cotton corne
case" has ever been before the Su
Ureme Court, it is said. The Govern
ment will ask the court to over-rul
the action of the United States Clrcul
Court for Southern New York, l
striking out of an Indictment agalns
James A. Patten, Eugene e. Scales
Frank B. Hayne and William 1
Brown, three counts. These coun'
charged in substance that these me
conspired to monopolize the inte1
state trade and commerce in avail
able cotton by acquiring enough
that commodity on the New York 60
ton Exchange to give the alleged col
spirators power to fix arbitrary an
excessive prices. It is charged TN
they knew the national result OF ru
ming corner would be to obstru
the cotton trade and injure bOna-n'
spinners and manufacturers by COZ
pelling them in buying cotton,
COMPLETE with short sellers WI
would be purchasing under the
normal conditions produced by e
corner" The lower court held tn
the restraint of the trade OF the spl
ner and manufacturer was remote a.
indirect and the operation of "ru
ming a corner" on the market "
not a violation of the Sherman an
trust law.
In the st. Louis bridge case, I
Government claims that the agr'
ments whereby the terminal rallro
association of st. Louis acquired I
ownership and control and opera
the 'Eads bridge" and the Id
chants bridge" across the MISSES
pi violate the Sherman antitrust Ii
The United States Circuit Court
Eastern Missouri dismissed the bill
The so-caued ''turpentine IT
case" involves the validity OF
Indictment and conviction of head
fcials of the American Naval Sto
Company on charges of having vlol
ed the Sherman antitrust law. L
spring the court declined to adva
the case for early hearing, but Il
barely possible it may do so this
son.