The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-16
LAWYERS ARGUE
!. |. BATH | TUB CASES.
Government government Makes Sweeping
Charge Against Members
OF Combine.
SAYS They CONTROL PRICE
Counsel for Defense Denies
Allegation i'll Toto Hear
j.i6 ing Is Technical.

Denying in toto the contentious OF
the government. Attorney Herbert,
Noble, OF New York, or counsel Tor the
defense. began argument Yesterday ar.
tcrnoon In the Circuit Court OF the
united States for the district OF Mary
iand now sitting in Richmond for
tne purpose OF hearing the case OF the
United States against the Standard
Sanitary Manufacturing and others.
known as the. Bath Tub Trust
Tho case was opened yesterday
morning by Edwin r. Grosvcnor, spe-
cial assistant TO the Attorney General,
with argument for tho government.
ana this continued into the afternoon
session. when the defense took up It's
work before the court
4 Counsel for the trust. which is said
to be composed or sixteen corporations
and thirty-four individuals. Includes
Former Governor Walter Lyon. OF
pennsylvania; william l. Marbury. OF
baltimore; HartwelI p. Heath Robert
New York City; Marshall a. Christy.
OF Pittsburg: Russell r. McFaiI, Louis
T. Brucker and w. IS. Garvin.
ii Mny Not End To-day.
Attorney Grosvenor and United
States District Attorney John Philip
crnment The latter Will close tho ar
gument. which Is not likely to end
before tomorrow, though two days
only were designated for the hearing.
The case is being heard by Circuit
Judges Nathan Goff and ]. c. Pritch-
ard and District Judge John C. Rose.
1t being required in such cases that
three magistrates preside In order that
an appeal may be aiken By either side
TO the Supreme Court without going
through the Court of Appeals.
The action is a civil suit brought
hr t,n,., "a
against the corporations and indi-
viduals located in eleven ditcren;
States. manufacturing enameled ware.
such as bath tubs, sinks etc. and sell-
Ing these products throughout the
country. The total annual output is
said to aggregate more than $4,000
600 q year. which, the government
charges. is controlled b. the combi-
nation. aase
This is the hnal hearing on all of
the testimony. which occupies four
printed volumes.
The original petition in the case
WAS f,led by District Attorney Hin In
Baltimore, and the hearing is pur-
suant to n special net of Congress rela-
tive to such cases,
In opening his argument and stating
the case Mr.. Grosvcnor charged the
defendants with an attempt to disguise
the usual methods and forms adopted
OF license agreements protected by the
patent laws. He commended that the
license agreements did not relate &c
the patented articles. though lie alleged
that these contracts were SO worded by
the defendants as to convey the I'M
preston as II they included patented
articles. He also held that the Shcr-
man act applies 10 patented articles
and that combinations restraining
trade In patented articles are unlawful
Denial by iDefense.
Mr.. Noble opened the case for the
defense with sweeping statement
that tho contentious of Mr.. Grosvenor
were not supported by tho testimony
adduced before the examiner. He then
went Into a detailed description of the
patented tools involved in the case. and
10 better illustrate his points sub
mittcd as exhibits the actual articles.
The case Is one of the NEST involved
nd technically complicated ever heard
In a local court The proceedings.
which were dry and un~vcntful. except
for few clashes between counsel,
drew few and held no spectators.
It Is alleged by the government that
tho defendants control IS per cent OF
the total interstate and foreign trade
and commerce In enameled we're, and
would be In active competition to
prices and other conditions but for
the unlawful combination described In
tho petitioners bill.
The pleadcr holds that for many
years the defendants have b>en, and
are now, engaged in selling and ship
ping from their various places of
manufacture their. products of enam-
eled ironware Into the States OF the
United States other than those where
the articles are made. and In selling
And shipping to foreign countries. All
OF the defendants are said to have
agents In different parts OF this coun-
try, who solicit orders for their pro-
ducts. which are then shipped pur-
euant to such orders from the several
factories to customers placing the or
dcrs. who are located in States other
than those wherein the factories arc
situated or shipped to such agents of
the defendants who are In other States.