New-York tribune., 1912-12-17

this relation afforded "the time place
and occasion for concert OF action
After disposing of the Temple COM
pany feature the justice took UP the
contracts with the independents, re-
ferred TO as the "65 per cent contracts
because the railroad companies were
to pay that percentage of the price
of coal at tidewater to the "indepeh-
dents" for their coal. The justice de-
clared that it was plainly established
that these contracts were made by con-
cert and that the plain deduction was
that the contracts were designed TO
control the sale of the independent out
put.
The old custom of Independents SELL
ing to railroad companies was de-
scribed. Justice Lurton told how the
entry of the New York. Susquehanna
g. Western into the coal carrying busl-
ness resulted in the percentage PAID by
the railroads to the independents being
raised from 40 per cent to so per cent.
The proposal to build the New YORK.
wyoming 6, Western, later prevented
by the Temple Iron Company DEAL
threatened to raise the prices. Similar
trouble was described as threatening
through the proposed construction OF
the Delaware & Kingston.
In short, Justice Lurton declared, the
PROPOSAL to build a new road into the
anthracite regions when large blocks
of contracts with independents were
about to expire was regarded as
menace" by all the existing roads. A
renewal of the contracts for short
term of years was described as mere
"postponement of the day Of competi-
ton" Hence it was, the court found,
that after the big coal strike in 1900
the railroads in concert led the indie
pendents to sell their output to them
as long as they operated their mines.
The opinion, regarding tho 60 per
cent contracts, went on:
1t Is not essential that these contracts,
considered singly, be unlawful as in re-
strsint OF trade SO considered. they
may be wholly innocent Even acts ao-
solutely lawful may be steps in Grim
inal plot, but series or such contracts,
If the result Of a concerted plan or plot
between the defendants 10 thereby se-
cure control of the sale Of the indepen-
dent coal in the markets OF other states,
and thereby suppress competition IN
prices between their own output and
that Of the independent operators, would
come plainly within the terms of the
statute and parts OF the scheme or plot
would be lawful.
Dealing still further with the 90 oec
cent contracts, Justice Lurton said that
an attempt was made to defend them
as not an unreasonable restraint Of
trade" as defined in the Standard Oil
case. He continued
In that case II was also said that the
words restraint Of trade should be
given a meaning which would not destroy
the individual right OF contract and rem
der difficult If not impossible. any move
ment which it was the purpose of the
statute To protect
We reafirm this view OF the plain
meaning OF the statute and In so doing
limit ourselves 10 the inquiry as 70
whether this plan or system of contracts,
scheme. does not operate TO unduly sup
press competition and restrain freedom OF
commerce among the states.
Before these contracts there existed not
only the power 10 compete but actual
competition between the coal OF inde-
pendents and that procured by the buying
defendants. Such competition was, after
the contracts, impracticable. II IL, of
course. obvious that the law may not
compel competition between these inde-
pendent coal operators and the defen-
dants, but it may at least remove Illegal
barriers resulting from Illegal agree
mcnts which will make such competition
impracticable.
The annulment of the 60 per cent
contracts is important. said Attorney
General Wickersham, not only because
it opens the way for competition, but
because the court holds that al
though a contract may be innocent in
itself bundle OF them may consti-
tute n violation Of the law"