Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-17
In Violation of Antitrust Law SAYS
United States Supreme COurt--Re-
fusal of Witness to Testify Causes
Money TrustHearing toAdjourn.
The Archibald Trial. Sheppard Kenyon Liquor Bill
In Senate Causes Brisk Debate.
THE COAL TRUST.

! Washington. Dec 1.-THE supreme
court of the United States today,
cancelled, as violative of the Sherman
antitrust law the contracts by which
the railroad owned coal companies in
the Pennsylvania anthracite fields has
purchased the output for all time of
independent mines.
Attorney General Wickersham in
statement. tonight. expressed the be-
lief that the decision "Wiu so COM
pletely destroy the combination which
now controls the price of anthracite
that it must result in a distinct meas
are of relief to the public"
The court also ordered the dssolu-
ton of railroad control of the Tenn
pie Iron Co, by which the principal
railroads and their eoal companies
were found TO have strangled a project
TO build a competing read into the
anthracite fields, in 1898, and which
monopolizing schemes could be put
into execution handily in the future.
The government failed, the court
held, to show a General combina-
j tion' to apportion the amount of coal
to be put upon the market annually
by the various roads. The government
other charges as to a general eombi
nation were characterized as indef-
mite
Minor combinations We're held to
have been improperly included in the
petition of the government. and the
proceed ding against them was dismiss
ed without prejudice to other actions
by the government
Attorney General Wickersham was
not prepared. today. to say whether
he would direct new proceedings
against these alleged combinations.
Justice Lurton announced The unan-
imous opinion Of the court, which, for
the purposes of this case, consisted of
only six members. Justice Day took
no part in the decision because of his
absence from the bench when the case
was argued, in October 1911. Justice
Hughes RETAINED from participating
in the action of the court because he
was q special assistant to the attorney
general when the coal business was
first Investigated by the government.
Justice Pitney was not on the bench
when the case was presented to the
court.
The suit was sent back to the
mated, the circuit court for eastern
Pennsylvania for the enforcement of
the decision. The finding of the low
er court was upheld except as to the
contracts with the Independents.
The railroads concerned in the case
We're the Philadelphia & Reading
and Lehigh Valley, the Delaware,
Lackawanna & Western, the Cen
trail Railroad of New Jersey, the
Erie and the New York, Susquehan-
ma & Western.
The minor combinations not passed
upon, but left for possible future con-
sideration. were those alleged to have
been created III 1898 by the absorb
ton of the New York, Susquehanna
& Western by the Erie; in 'oa1+
by the acquisition by the Reading
Co, which owned the Philaue.. 4..-I
& Reading Railroad and a coal COM
pany of similar name, of the Central
of New Jersey with its coal COM
panies; in 1899, by the acquisition
by the Erie of the Pennsylvania Coal
Co, which is said to have been pro-
jecting a new railroad, the Delaware
Valley & Kingston.
At the outset of his opinion Justice
Lurton dwelt upon the great factor of
the six railroads and their coal COM
panies in anthracite mining. Over 80
per cent. of the entire unmined area
i of anthracite was owned by them, he
declared, and over 10 per cent. of the
annual supply put upon the market
was theirs. He said the tremendous
influence of these companies in this
business was due to the liberal policy
of the state of Pennsylvania to en-
courage coal development by author
izing an alliance between the coal
producing and the coal transporting
companies. AS to the transportation
of the coal to tidewater the great
distributing center Justice Lurton
said that, Independent of any agree
ment or combination, the six rail-
| roads were in indisputed control.
The situation is one which invites
concerted action continued the
justice, and makes exceedingly easy
| the accomplishment of any purpose to
dominate the supply and control the
prices at the seaboard. The one
fourth supply which comes from in
dependent operators has been sold in
competition with the larger supply of
the defendants. If by concert of ac-
ton that source of competition be re-
| moved, the monopoly which the de-
PENDANTS, acting together, may esert
| over production and sale, will be COM
piete.''
With this situation outlined, the
! justice proceeded to see what had oc-
Continued on Page Twelye)