The Mellette County pioneer. [volume] (Wood, Mellette County, S.D.) 19??-1971, 1912-12-27
NO COAL COMBINE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HOLD
v. s. HAS FAILED TO PROVE
AN ANTHRACITE TRUST.
IMPORTANT POINT IS WON
Decision upholds Contention Of the
Government That "65 Per Cent"
Contracts Are lllesai-oil Case
Rulins Repeated.

Washington. Dec. lS.-The Supreme
court OF the United States decided
against the government Monday in its
fight 20 have the anthracite coal car
rying railroads and their affiliated
coal companies declared 10 be In n
general combination in violation OF
the Sherman antitrust law.
II won victory in getting the court
TO hold void the 60 per cent. contracts
whereby the railroad coal compa-
MES buy the output Of independent"
mines. Justice Lurton. in announcing
the opinion. said these contracts
were plainly in violation OF the law.
The court also held that the rail
roads had violated the law by attempt
ing 10 shut out OF the anthracite re-
gion a competitive road through the
control OF the Temple Iron company
As 10 minor combinations OF rail.
roads and coal companies charged TO
be violating the law. the court dis
missed the action without prejudice 10
future suits, because II held IL not fair
to require those groups TO make
defense In an action primarily against
q general combination
In an opinion announced By Asso-
ciate Justice Lurton the court says:
u. The general combination al.
legged by the government TO exist be-
tween the defendant roads for an ap.
portionment for total tonnage to the
seaboard by an agreement in the IA.
ture OF a pooling arrangement has not
been established and. therefore, the
relief sought by the government upon
assumption of such combination is de-
MED.
20. The court finds. however. that
the principal defendants did combine,
for the purpose Of shutting out from
the anthracite coal field a projected
Independent line OF railroad the New
York. Wyoming and Western railroad
and 10 accomplish that purpose IL Is
found that the stock OF the Temple
Iron company and OF the Simpson and
Watkin collieries was acquired for the
purpose OF and with the intent. not OF
formally and lawfully developing
trade. but OF restraining interstate
commerce and competition in trans.
portation which would have presum-
ably come about through the construc.
ton and operation OF the proposed
competing line OF railroad between the
mines and tidewater
IS. The court holds that certain
contracts made with producers, cover
n ~ 81
total annual supply OF coal, known as
the 60 per cent. contracts. BY which
such independent producers bound
themselves 20 deliver the output OF
their mine or any other mine
which they might acquire 10
the railroad companies for So per
cent. OF the average market price a.
tidewater. were also void. because in
violation OF the antitrust act. as alb.
normal and illegal restraints upon in.
terstate commerce
"a The court reiterates the decla
ration in the Standard Oil case. that
an act of congress does not forbid o,
restrain the power 10 mark normal and
unusual contracts to further trade b.
resorting 20 all normal methods.
whether by agreement or otherwise.
TO accomplish such purpose Never.
theless, It holds that the acts which II
finds in this case to be Illegal. the
Temple Iron and Go per cent. con-
tracts, were not within such class.
but. on the contrary. were abnormal in
their character and directly tended 10
and were intended 20 illegally restrain
trade ard commerce and. therefore.
came within the statute as illustrated
By the rulings in ST. Louis Terminal
association and Swift and Co VS..
United States"