The Detroit times., 1912-03-15

the view of the government, the
court confused conspiracy and con-
tract, The indictment was brought
for the forming OF conspiracy and
so charges.
The court in his effort 10 show
the good faith of defendants. COM.
mcnted on the fact that one OF the
defendants had requested the papers
TO be sent TO Washington when they
were signed. but did not refer To the
fact that the government brought a
suit in equity within four weeks after
the arrangement went into effect, nor
to the fact TINT tine defendants CON
tinued their unlawful combination IN.
I'll they were indicted the following
December These facts were i'm evil
dence. Nor did the court refer 10
the fact that the very defendant who
asked that the papers be sent 10
Washington was present at meet
ing OF several OF the defendants a
week later in Chicago. at which the
plan was called 'subterfuge' and an
arbitrary price agreement, and this
was admitted by the defendants pres
emit
THE government also contended
that a manufactures OF unpatented
articles cannot fix arbitraril" the
prices of unpatented articles by tax
ing out licenses to use a tool. The
court held that such an arrangement
was unlawful II the manufacturers
wanted to get the use of the tool,
even though they wanted to fix prices
on things not patented. This is di'
rectiy contrary to the decision OF the
Baltimore court i'm the civil suit.
Furthermore. the court limited in
his char &c TO the jury his disapproval
of the Sherman act, and expressed
his views as TO its uncertainty
With such rulings and such a
charge, IL would he impossible TO con.
Wet any body of anything.
THE charge of the court amounted
TO directions TO acquit but in spite OF
such charge the jury by its dis.
agreement refused 10 follow the in.
structions of the court"
Herbert p. Noble. one OF the attor-
ueys for the defendants. characteri/
ed Mr.. Grosvenor's statement as
"contemptuous."
The disagreement involves a new
trial which will cost the defendants,
who have already spent 100000 in
TIE case, at lcdSl lldll dS
ana will also put heavy charge upon
the government. The case has oc-
cupied the United States district
court for more than five weeks and
haa required the constant attendance
of Special Agent Grosvenor of the de-
partment of Justice. and former Dis
trict Attorney Watson, in addition to
District Attorney futile,
The government attorneys We're as
much surprised as anyone else az the
outcome of the case. When the jury
retired they considered that their
case was lost beyond question.
The defendants, eleven individuals
and as many corporations, were as
Theodore Ahrens, Jesse I.
+. l.. Dawes, Francis j, Tor
rance, #. r. Barnes. Howard T. Gates,
Frank G. Borden. A. Weiskittei,
Lloyd G.. McCrum. Herman Hoelsch-
Ter, j. L. Wright: the Barnes Manu-
featuring Co; Humphreys Manufac-
ing Co; L. Wolff Manufacturing Co;
McCrumHowell Co.; McVey & Walk
err; j. l.. Mott Iron Works; National
Sanitary Manufacturing Co.: Stan
iaru Manufacturing Co; Union SAM
tary Manufacturing Co.; A. Weiskittel
Sons Co, and Wheeling Enamel Iron
TO.
Three Of the defendants, Theodore
Ahrens and +. l.. Dawes, OF the Stan
lard Sanitary Manufacturing Co,
and Jesse T. Duryea, OF
the Colwell Lead Co, New York, re-
fused an opportunity to go free be-
fore the case went to the jury de-
claring that they wanted to see the
case through Mr. Dawes told The
Times that he would rather go to
prison with the rest than 80 free on
4 technicality.