The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-10
DECISION OF COURT
BELOW IS ATTACKED
Supreme Court Asked to De-
clare Running a Stock EX-
change Corner Unlawful.
PATTEN CASE COMES UP
Views of Solicitor General
Lehman and Reply of
Former Senator Spooner.
PATTEN CASE COMES UP

WASHINGTON. Nov. a.-For the hrs'
time the government today asked Inc
supreme court of the United states to
proclaim as the law OF the land tna'
running a corner" on stock exchange
;s = violation of the sherman antitrust
Bct. ,,,,,,
The point came M in tho oral argunlem,,
of Solicitor General Lehman IN Tuppo, p,p
of tho indictment Of James y, la,Sgu' WI,
Eugene Scales. Frank B. Haync and WI.
liam y Brown on charges OF conspiracS
10 run a corner In cotton on 1he ~ NJ " ",
York cotton exchange. ESscI.'1i, l..ia ,od 80 or
roneous by the United states courl 10,
southern New York. and the governments
was arguing for reversal. -, 80
chief Justice White asked IL 'he SoN
eminent considered that combination
IN force down the price of n commonly
would be in violation OF The law. us "eli
ss a combination 10 put tne p,ctnn.np ps,cen ~
as charged I'm the present Indictment
Nfr Lehman said he WAS not ianl.MI,al M
enough with the market TO reply. Ihe
chief Justice also failed TO get concise
answer 10 his query about the lcSah'y Oh
planters combining for higher prices.
View Of Solicitor.
Mr. Lehman mn in attacking the holding
OF the circuit court. referred 10 IL as say
ing that no restraint OF competition In
Interstate commerce was charged In the
Indictment.
Hc urged that the sherman antitrust
law was not directed against restraint OF
competition, but against n restraint oil
trade. He added that even If 1T hao
been aimed al restraint of competition
the competition caused by an increased
prize OF cotton would he temporary and
abnormal a thing which the law aimed
20 prevent.
The solicitor general admitted the right
OF a man faT-sghtcd enough TO see that
n commodity was likely 10 rise TO 20 INTO
N" market and boy TO the extent OF ms
feEdan,s had sought 10 raise the price
arbitrarily by linking Their purses To-
gether 10 buy all the cotton offered for
future delivery.
Spooner's Argument
Former United states Senator John G..
Srooner, opposing Mr.. Lshmann. de-
clarcd thai the counts had been found
bad because they charged no restraint
oi trade. The solicitor general. he said.
had devoted himself almost exclusively
10 showing that the defendants had
monopoly Not q word about monopoly.
he asserted. was 10 he found in the In
dictmenI He declared the defendants
were not charged with ever having
bale ar cotton and so they could not
have had a monopoly OF cotton.
by contracting 20 buy futures, he
said. the defendants might have made II
possible for the men who did have the
cotton 10 increase tho price, but surely
the defendants were not Ia be charged
with this Increase.
The defendants. hc argued. were
charged with consDiring 10 buy cotton
futures nothing else. These purchases
were Ia compel demand by the Gcllcrs
cf the contracts for cotton for future de-
In prices o. cotton on the New York Cot
tor Exchange. That rise was 10 cause
rise OF prices IN other markets That
riso in other markets was 10 cause tho
spnners and manufacturers 10 pay eX-
ccssivc prices.
Those excessive prices may have
stopped some tiafflc Ia cotton Some
state traffic. 'Phr rcmoteness cf The con
neciion between what the defendants are
alleged 10 have done and tho results is
TOO great This sequence OF causation is
reminiscent uf The nurscry Jingle about
-lA hnmsn thAl IMck hLiili. ="