Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1911-10-13
SUPREME COURT
HAS BIG DOCKET
HIGH TRIBUNAL JUSTICES RE-
SuME WORK WITH 7s1 Ac-
TloNS AWAITING DECISION.
MINNESOTA RATE CASE IS UP
Committee Of Governors viii Appear
In Behalf of the State-lmpor-
tant Antitrust Gases to
Be Heard.

Be Heard.
Washington.-Whe the supreme
court convened October after its
summer vacation 1t was confronted
by an exceptionally heavy docket, con-
sisting of Isl actions, as compared
with SOC a year ago. Transportation
rates will be the principal questions
that the court will have to decide, and
although the cases are by no means
30 important as the Standard Oil and
tobacco trust suits, the decisions are
eagerly awaited by the railroad inter
ests throughout the country. Perhaps
the most important of these suits is
the Minnesota rate case, In which
Judge Sanborn of the United States
circuit court held that the state had
no right to regulate rates within its
borders. This decision was based on
the theory that interstate commerce
might be affected by such action.
During the recent conference of gov
ernors at Spring Lake, N. j., the at
tention of the entire country was
called to the matter by the speech Of
NONGIhoI Alui VI ANCpioohu, "ho
attacked Judge Sanborn's decision
and said that the federal courts were
trespassing on the rights of the state.
A committee headed by Governor
Harmon of Ohio was appointed to ap-
pear in the supreme court on behalf
of the state.
Important Antitrust Cases.
Next come several antitrust" cases
whose hearing has been held up pend
ing the tobacco and Standard Oil de-
cisions. These actions all involve the
Interpretation of the Sherman law,
and the decisions rendered are expect
ed to mark definitely the bounds of
the trust decisions of last spring. The
clerk of the court has announced that
this litigation has been advanced on
the court docket. Among these cases
are included the hard coal case,'' the
cotton corner case" the "St. Louis
bridge case" and "turpentine case"
The hard coal case" constitutes an
attack by the government on the prin
cipal anthracite coal carrying rail
roads and coal mine owning compan
les in Pennsylvania. 1t is alleged that
since 1895 these companies and rail
roads have been parties to conspir
acy and combination to end competi
ton among themselves in the trans
portation and sale of anthracite coal
and to prevent the sale of an indie
pendent output in competition to their
own.
In the st. Louis bridge case the
government contends that the agree
ments whereby the Terminal Railroad
association of st. Louis acquired the
ownership osntrol and operation oi
the Eades' bridge and the merchants
bridge across the Mississippi violate
the Sherman antitrust law. The
United States circuit court for eastern
Missouri dismissed the bill.
Cotton Corner Case.
Nothing like the cotton corner case
has ever before come before the su
preme court. The government will asl
the supreme court to overrule the ac
ton of the United States circuit cour
for southern New York in striking
out an indictment against James A
Patten, Eugene G. Scales, Frank B
Hayne and William P. Brown. Three
counts charged that these men con
spired to monopolize the interstate
trade and commerce in available cot
ION by acquiring enough of that com
change to give the alleged conspira
tors power to fix arbitrary and exces
sive prices. 1t was charged that the,
knew of the injury to bona fide spin
ners and manufacturers, by compel
ing them to buy cotton in competition
with short sellers, who would be pun
chacing under the abnormal condition
produced by the corner" The lowe
court held that the results of the re
straint of trade to the spinners AM
manufacturer were remote and ind
rect and the operation of running
corner" on the exchange was not VI
olation of the Sherman antitrust Law
The so-called "turpentine case" In
wolves the validity of the indictmen
and conviction of the American Nava
Stores company of charges of havin
violated the Sherman antitrust law.
The decisions of the interstate CON
merce commission will claim the al
tention of the court in the so-calle
"grain elevator cases." There is
long series of these cases and 1t
expected the highest tribunal in tn
country will decide the question as t
whether the interstate commerce con
mission possesses the power to pre-
lhihit railroads from paying to operf
tors of elevators compensation TO
"elexating grain in transit"