Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-01-23
TRUST PLEA DENIED
Federal Court Judge Refuses
to Quash Indictments.
BATHTUB CASE DOCKETED
Scheduled for Trial, Following the
Order Of Reinstatement.
REASON GIVEN FOR DECISION
Standard Oil Opinion by Supreme
Court No Bar to Prosecutions
Under Sherman Act.
BATHTUB CASE DOCKETED
REASON GIVEN FOR DECISION

DETROIT, Mich, January 23-UniteC
States District Judge A. c.. Angel toda.
denied the motion made in behalf of the
Colwell Lead Company of New York te
quash the indictments in the government
criminal case against the bath tub
trust. This reinstates the case, which is
scheduled to come up for trial here Tues
day. January 80 There are about two
score defendants.
Referring in his opinion to the Standard
Oil decision, Judge Angel said:
II see no reason to suppose that in de-
livering its opinion in the Standard Oil
States intended to render impossible Grim
inal prosecutions under the Sherman act,
and / am unable to conclude that it did
render them impossible.
Supreme Court Ruling.
1.-THE Supreme Court held that the
words contract, etc, in restraint of trade
were not to be interpreted with literal
strictness, but reasonably in the light of
common law.
1.-THE act does not leave a citizen with
out any standard by which in advance OF
q verdict or decree he may determine
whether his action will amount to rea-
sonable restraint OF trade.
ION generally settled principles all con-
tracts whose sole or main aim and prl-
mary object Is to stifie competition. en-
nance prices and promote monopoly are
unenfOrcible and void:
IT the class OF contracts which are
unenforcible because in restraint OF trade
is reasonably certain. and II the act as
tracts of that class, there is reasonable
certainty as to what Is forbidden by the
act.
Contracts Void Under Law.
IF the act is now to be understood to
mean that such contracts are forbidden
as are void upon established legal pr1n-
ciples apart from the act itself, it can
not properly be said that guilt or inno-
cence depends upon nothing but the de-
termination of the tribunal before which
after the event a person may be tried.
AS to averment that the indictments
do not state that the alleged restraint of
trade is unreasonable or undue. Judge
ANGEL said that the indictments set out
facts showing that the alleged restraint
was unreasonable and that the defendant
was fairly advised as to what l. has TO
meet at the trial.
Upon the contention of the defense
that no overt act after the alleged
completion of conspiracy was shown,
Judge Angel ruled that the facts pre-
scented as overt acts could fairly be
considered as acts done in pursuance
Of the combination or conspiracy al
legged to have been completed.
"If 1t should be shown" said the
cou1sk that no combination or con-
spiYSty was completed prior to the
date alleged as the date of the per-
Torrance of overt acts a serious ques-
ton may have to be met as to the
Jurisdiction Of this court"
Decision on Immunity Plea.
The immunity plea was commented
upon briefly by Judge Angel as hay-
ing been already disposed Of by Judge
Denison in the local federal court.
On the contention that no competent
evidence was presented before the
grand jury. Judge Angel said:
without entering into any discussion
Of the question how far a court may look
into the proceedings Of grand jury, the
presumption is in favor of the action of
the grand jury. and there is no showing
that competent evidence was presented
to warrant the quashing of the indict-
ments."