The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-12-17
Many Complaints Received

Whether the department of justice will undertake further investigation of the coal situation has not been determined Numerous complaints have been received alleging restraint of trade as being ac- countable for the high prices of coal this fall and winter in certain sections of the country. Action on these has been de- feIred pending the decision handed down today.
 The decision" said Attorney General Wickersham in his statement tonight marks the close of d 10-year combi- nation controlling the production ship ment and marketing of anthracite coal The bill was filed after an investigation by the interstate commerce commission. Suit was brought in Philadelphia in June 1907
 Tt is believed that this decision will so completely destroy the combination which now controls the price of anthra- cite coal that it must result in q ds- tinct measure of relief to the public.
 There were a number of subsidiary questions raised in the bill representing charges that defendant combinations which the defendants were alleged to have formed were unlawful, but the court. holding that as all of the derend- ants are not parties to any one of those combinations but that each of them ar fleets some of the defendants only, dis misses them out of this suit without prejudice and without expressing any opinion concerning the illegality."
 Began in 1907
 Today's decision had it's genesis in the action begun by the government in 1907 in the United States circuit court for eastern Pennsylvania.
 The action was brought against the big factories in the hard coal trade. The list of defendants was headed by the Reading company. a holding corporation. The railroads made defendants were the Philadelphia & Reading Railway com pany, the Lehigh Valley Railway com- pany, the Delaware IacSawanna X Western Railroad company, the Central Railroad company of New Jersey, the Erie Railroad company and the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad company The Pennsylvania and the New York Ontario and Western. two other important roads in the hard coal field were not included in the suit. Other defendants were coal companies affiliated with the railroad defendants, and 32 'in- dependent operators who had entered into contracts to sell their output for ever to the railroads or their afhllatad' coal companies
 In it's suit the government charged first the existence of general combi- nation Tn violation of the sherman antitrust law and then charged that several smaller combinations within the big one were not only in violation of the law, themselves, but constituted evidence of a general combination.
 The general combination was alleged to have for it's object the ending of competition among the defendant rail- roads in the transportation and sale of anthracite coal, and Of preventing the sale of the output of independent operators in competition with the de- fendants' coal. The combination. II was alleged, transported 77 per cent of the anthracite coal moving. from the mines, controlled over ST per cent. of all the anthracite in the ground, and produced 60 per cent. and marketed 70 per cent. of the annual output. The lower court was unanimous in holding that there existed no. general combi=. nation in violation of law.
 Special Complaint