Evening journal., 1911-03-06
NO TRUST, The
LAWYERS ARGUE
Counsel for dupont Company
Says Purchase Of Competing
Plants Vas Not Illegal
ARGUMENT RESUMED
BEFORE COURT TODAY

Argument for the defense in the
case Of the United States VS.. the E. l.
DUPONT de Nemours Powder COMPANY
and its sixteen associated defendants
was resumed before Judges Gray, Buf-
ilngton and Lanning, in the United
States Circuit Court, Philadelphia,
this morning and will be continued
until Thursday
Before the court on Saturday John
{. Spooner, ex-United States Senator
from Wisconsin, argued for the de-
fcnse.
His main points were that the de-
PENDANTS had not stifled or attempted |
to stife competition in the powder
trade, and that the purchase of plants
IN various States was for the manu-
1acture of powder, not commerce In /
it.
Before Mr.. Spooner spoke counsel
for the various individual defendants /
argued to show that their clients sepa-
rately were guiltless of conspiracy in /
restraint of trade.
William II. Button concluded his |
argument for the DUPONT Company. /
He was followed in turn by Attorney |
Frederick Ullman, of Chicago, cOun- |
sci for the American Powder Company |
Of Boston, and the Miami Powder |
Company and the Aetna Powder Com |
pany, of Chicago; B. B. Tuttle, of
Cincinnati for the King Powder Com !
pany; Frederick Seymour. for the
Equitable Powder, and David Watson, |
of Pittsburg, and David T. Marvel for
Colonel Henry A. DUPONT
Each declared that there was no
specific charge of conspiracy or col
lusion made against his client, and
on that ground asked for the dis
missal of the complaint.
Mr. Spooner dwelt at length upon
the Interpretation of the term COM
petition" in the Sherman act as APP
piled i'm the present case. The act, he
urged, reading the section under
which the proceedings were brought,
could be applied only in instances
where competition had been stifed in
tho interstate transportation or a
commodity. The contracts OF the de-
fcndants i'm the present suit. he main
tained. not only did not stiiie but IN
deed. promoted trade and commerce
aud therefore were lawful-such
agreements as the interstate COM
1nerce act countenanced. Contracts
or agreements which shut off the flow
of commerce were intended by the
act he said. to be eXterminatd as
trammeling competition.
Defends Property Purchases.
The Sherman act was directed
against trusts, combinations and con
spiracies formed to restrain trade, but
Congress. he argued. never intended
10 prohibit the purchasing OF properly
Of competitors when restraint OF trade
was not the purpose ~ 80"
Mr.. Spooner said that the present
heads of the DUPONT business nad
only become interested I'm 1893. and
That prior to 1902 they had not been
associated with any conce--
powdcr trade. Therefore, he did not
sec how these defendants could be
parties to a conspiracy that began
in 1872 in the old Gun Powder lrades
Association and continued under the
new organization. when they only
went int othe firm after the death oil
their relative, Eugene DUPONT.
Further. Mr.. Spooner argued that
there was nothing in the purchase OF
indcpendent manufactures by the du-
Pont de Nemours Company that point
cd TO a contemplated conspiracy or
combination. aud that the antitrust
law permitted the requirement OF
property by a corporation on the
crcdit plan, such as had been done in
some cases by the DUPONT concern.
I'm taking up the contracts which
thp Government contends was the
principal step ia the conspiracy, Mr..
Snooner said that the agreement OF
1926 which was found in the safe al
though technically in effect was not
abided by for years before its dis
Ccyery Since the reorganization OF
the company no such trade agree
mcuts had been entered into, and the
association was engaged in an active
competitive business with other pow
der manufacturers.
Even if it was conceded that
monopoly existed here" he declared,
that fact would not prove that
restraint Of trade existed within the
meaning Of the commerce act.
nid Not Break Law.
The purchase of plants by the du-
Pont Company I'm several States, be-
Ing for the manufacture of powder
aud not commerce in it, did not, Mr.
Spooner contended, break the Sher-
man law. 1t did not come within the
regulatory powers Of Congress to de-
termine whether 1T was the intention
OF q corporation to do an interstate
business after it had purchased the
stock and plant of a competitor.
When the DUPONT Company, he said,
issued a list of prices to be charged
on black powder and dynamite it did
rot seek to regulate or restrain
trade.
The DUPONT family had been in the
manufacture of powder for a long
period Of time, a period almost COM
mensurate with the age OF the nation.
I'm the course of that time, he de-
clared. members OF the family had
given Of their means aud their SER
vice to the United States Government
in times of need.
James Scarlet for the Government,
followed the ex-senator. He had not
gone far into his argument before
the court adjourned. He read copious
extracts from minutes Of meetings
held by the advisory committee Of the
dupont de Nemours Company which
tended to show that prices were made
SO as TO regulate the price of powder
in the markets of the United States
and thus to bear hardly upon COM
petitors. Mr. Scarlet contended that
the conspiracy attacked in the pro-
ceedings, while begun in 1872. was
continued by various acts to 1902
aud, therefore, the duPonts had been
Justly put on their defense.