New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-20
Government Accuses United
Company of Criminal Viola
ton of Antitrust Law.
SUIT BROUGHT IN BOSTON
President Winslow, Three Vice
Presidents and Two Counsel
Named-Penalty, Fine
or Imprisonment.

tho federal grand Jury for alleged viola
tons of the Sherman antitrust act Two
indictments were returned, alleging the
maintenance of an unlawful combination
and conspiracy I'm restraint Of trade on the
part Of Sydney W. Winslow, the president;
Edward p. Hurd, George w Brown and
William Barbour. vice-presidents, and FL
mer p. Howe and James J Storrow, coun-
sci for the company. Winslow, Hurd,
Brown. Howe and Storrow are Bostonians
and Mr. Barbour is resident of New
York. All except Mr. Storrow are directors
Of the company. Mr.. Storrow resigned
from the directorate Just before the mu-
uiclpal election two years ago, when he
was a candidate for Mayor. but Is the
largest stakeholder
The grand jury sat for nearly a month
considering the evidence given by seventy
five witnesses. who were brought here by
special agents Of the Department Of Jus
tice at Washington from all parts Of the
country, but especially from New England
The Investigation was conducted by United
states Attorney Asa p. French, assisted by
William s, Gregg, special Assistant Attor-
ney General. and Oliver r. Pagan, Of
Washington.
The indicted officials will he summoned
70 court within the next ten days TO plead
10 the indictments and furnish bail. The
trial will not take place until well along in
the winter owing TO the crowded condition
Of the Circuit Court calendar.
The penalty provided under the statutes
involved is fine Of 5000 or imprisonment
for one year or both.
What the Government Charges.
The following summary Of the indict-
ments was given out by Mr.. Gregg:
In these indictments the District Attor-
rey has varied the charge m different
counts to meet possible variations in the
evidence at the trial, and possible varia-
tons i'm the views of the trial court ana
higher courts as to the applicability Of the
different provisions " the Sherman law to
the facts stated.
Both indictments charge that the six de-
PENDANTS have been working through the
instrumentality OF the United Shoe Ma
chinery Company which they have don't
mated and controlled, i'm a wav 70 make
them as individuals, Criminally liable under
the Sherman act.
The indictments first describe the shos
manufacturing business and the shoe ma
cEinery business as they existed prior TO
ana on February !, 1899 and then set iOrth
all the facts pertaining 10 the merger on
urinS cCrporatiOrs-the Consolidated and
Mckay Lasting Machinery Company, for
merry dominated by the defendants; Wins
low, Hurd and Brown: the Mckay Shoe
Machinery Company. formerly dominated
by the defendant, James J. StorroU, and
the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company,
formerly dominated ny the defendants, Bar
bOur and Howe. under the name Of the
United Shoe Machinery Company the
subsequent carrying on Of the business IN
der that name. Then is told the story OF
the oppressive uniform lease provisions, re-
curing shoe manufacturers To patronlZe
the United company exclusively under pain
of having all their leases cancelled and all
the United machinery removed from their
factories.
II is further charged that this process
drove other shoe machinery manufacturers
out of business and effectually put all shoe
manufacturers at the mercy Of the United
company.
one Indictment, making no mention Of
patents, charges that this whole trans
action was a mOnOpOlZatiOn OF the trade
I'm shoe machinery and a conspiracy to
mouopoZe the same.
The other Indictment charges, in one
count, that this carrying on Of the bust
ness under the merger was engaging I'm a
combination In restraint OF the trade of
the merged companies, in so far as their
patent monopoles were extended under
the merger: and. IN another count. that il
was "A conspiracy I'm restraint Of the trade
of the shoe manufacturers. and in still
was mOnopOliZation Of Interstate trade
and commerce in shoe machinery In that
mOnopOliCS permitted 10 the three old COM
panies under their patents We're extended
far beyond their lawful bounds. Appropri-
tte allegations are made to show the per-
h!cious effects of all this upon the public.
The court proceedings to-day occupied
less than five minutes, for the grand jury
merely handed in the formal documents in
IL nd la,
Complaints made to the Department of
Justice against the United Shoe Machinery
Company-the so-called Shoe Machinery
Trust-brought the attention of the gov
eminent to the case. Prompt action on the
part of the government followed the re-
ceipt Of the complaints In April-a few
weeks after they had been fled-AIr Gregg
began an inquiry. Special agents assisted
him. The result was that on July % At
torney General Wickersham ordered United
States Attorney French and Mr. Gregg to
present the evidence obtained to the fed
eral grand jury which reported yesterday.
The Companys History.
The United Shoe Machinery Company
came into being I'm 1889. II was founded by
Sydney n. Winslow, its present head, who
learned shoemaking in a small factory in
Salem, Mass owned by his father. who, to
obtain the advantages Of combining allied
interests, formed corporation embracing
the three leading companies then making
shoe machinery--the Goodyear Sewing Ma
chine Company. the Consolidated and Nc
Kay Lasting Company and the Mckay
Shoe Machinery Company. The company
was reorganlZed in 1905, and later auxiliary
companies We're formed in Canada, Great
Britain, France and Germany. That same
year the manufacturing of all its shoemak-
ing machinery was concentrated in one
large factory at Beverly, Mass. The United
States Shoe Machinery Company now en-
ploys four thousand hands, who turn out
twenty thousand shoe machines yearly.
The royalty system, by which the cor
poration dspoSes OF its machines, allows
a shoe manufacturer 10 lease machines,
paying rent in royalties on every shoe
made. 4 manufacturer may buy machn-
cry II he gets il from the United Shoe
Machinery Company, providing, 1t is al
legged, he also buys his "hndings'-such
as wire nails and eyelets-from the COM
pauy. IT is asserted that the royalty raid
the United company is about 2s-3 cents
on each pair of shoes.
Last year the company brought suit
against Thomas 6. Plant, a Boston shoe
manufacturer. charging patent infringe
ments Plant sold out his shoe machinery
plant and patent rights to the United
company after a bitter fight
4 few months later an independent com
pany-the Bresnahan Shoe Machinery
Company of Lynn, Mass.-was also pur-
chased by tho United company.
The next important happening I'm the ufe
of tho I-nited Shoe Machinery COM.