Evening star., 1912-11-18
TO Be HERE TONIGHT UPHOLD TRUST LAW
President Taft Will Return to "Bathub' Combine Is De-
Washnuton About II Pm. cared Illegal
MEETS YALE CORPORATION SUPREME COURT DECISION
ONLY Short Stay Opinion Rendered by Justice Nc
of His Alma Mater Kenna Today
SPENDS SUNDAY YORK GOVERNMENT WINS IT'S FIGHT
of
Home Ware Makers in
Mems and Avoids iatlon OF Sherman Act q.
"Bathtub" Combine Is De-
cIared Illegal.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Opinion Is Rendered by Justice Nc
Kenna Today.
GOVERNMENT WINS IT'S FIGHT
License Agreements of Enameled
Ware Makers Held to Be in Vio-
lation of Sherman Act.

The Supreme Court of the United States
today delivered a deathblow at viola
tions Of the Sherman antitrust law under
the cloak Of the protection of the patent
laws by annulling as invalid license
agreements which he manufacturers OF
sanitary enameled ironware together ia q
combination.
Justice McKenna delivered the unani-
nous opinion Of the court. He said that
rights conferred by patents were. indeed.
extension. but they did not give a univer-
sal license against the positive prohib-
tions OF the Sherman law, any more than
other rights do.
Fight Begun by Government.
The fight against the enameled ware
manufacturers was begun by the gov
ernment In the United States district
court of Maryland. 1t being charged
that the fifty defendants named had
entered into a combination to restrain
interstate trade in sanitary enameled
ironware, and had attempted to monopo-
lize that trade. Sixteen of the defend
ants were corporations One of the in
diyidual defendants was Edwin l.. Way
man. with whom the corporate defend
ants and their officials were charged
with having entered into illegal agree
ments.
Agreements Were Licenses,
The agreements We're in effect licenses
whereby Wayman permitted the manu-
facturers to use his patented dredger. a
tool employed to sprinkle enamel over
the red hot iron ware. The manufacturers
IN
the use of the dredser, ,ut Wayman
was to refund 81 of this in three months,
provided that the manufacturers had not
violated any conditions of the agree
ments. Among these conditions were
/ ones that they would not sell any sec
onds," except bathtubs; would not sell
| to any jobber who did not sign con-
| tract not to buy from any one other than
the corporate defendants. and not to sell
at lower price or on more attractive
terms than those named in a schedule
of prices attached to the agreement.
Decision of Lower Court.
| The lower court held that the agree
ments destroyed competition and fixed
lprices in violation OF the Sherman law.
and, furthermore. that the patent on the
| dredger did not make the agreements
lawful. 1t prohibited the defendants
from attempting further to restrain trade
by means of these agreements. pro-
nOunced illegal.
Justice McKenna began the announce
ment of the SUPP eme Courts opinion to-
day by describing the alleged unsatis-
| factory state of the art OF enameling
| ironware before the invention OF the pat
ent Wayman bought He next spoke or
how effective the combination OF the
| manufacturers became through Way
| mans plan to grant licenses on his pat
ent.
Restraint of Trade.
THE agreements clearly, therefore"
said Justice McKenna, '.transcended what
patent or the monopoly which the Jaw
conferred upon IT, They PISSED to the
purpose and accomplished a restraint Of
trade condemned by the Sherman law"
| He said there was nothing in the mim-
eograph case of .ast year which con-
| travened the views he was expressing
1.-The added element of the patent IN
| the case at bar cannot confer immunity.
he added.
| After discussing several antitrust cases
| he continued:
| Rights conferred by patents are in
deed very definite and extensive. but they
do not give any more than other ghts
| to universal license against positive ITo-
| hibitions. The Sherman ,aw is a limta-
L
evil consequences and therefore re-
strained
Tobacco Case Decision.
Justice Mckenna referred to the to-
bacco case decision being the very
latest and comprehensive interpretation
| of the law. He quoted that opinion
as saying that the law was designed to
prevent evasions of it's policies "by re-
~ Off, 80
| form"
Nor can they be evaded by good
motives" added Justice Mckenna. The
law is it's own measure Of right and
| wrong, Of what it permits or forbids,
and the judgment Of courts cannot be
set up against Ii in a supposed accom-
mediation Of it's policy with the good
Intention Of parties. and. 1t may be, of
some good results.
The manufacturers had set up that ono
of their objects was to prevent seconds
being sold to an ignorant public as first
class ware.
Complaint of Defendants.
Justice McKenna touched upon tho
complaint of the defendants that they
had been prevented from offering certain
testimony by the criminal proceedings
ae ainst officials of the companies before
the Michigan courts.
"The Sherman act provides for crirni-
nal proceeding to punish violations and
suits in equity to restrain such violations
and the suits may be brought simultane-
ously or successively.
"The order of their bringing must de-
pend upon the government: the depend
ence of their trials cannot be fixed by
hard and fast rule, or made imperatively
to turn upon the character of the suit.
Circumstances may determine and are for
the conside alton of the court. An inn
perative rule that the civil suit must
await the trial of the criminal action
might result In injustice or take from
the statute a great deal Of power
The Justice concluded by saying that
the most favorable view which can be
taken of the rights Of the defendants was
that they must depend upon the discre-
tion of the court. In the present case. :
where the court declined to postpone the
civil suit until after the criminal trial. no
abuse of discretion arose.
Decision Marks an Epoch.
The decision marked an epoch In anti
trust decisions. because 1t sustained the
governments contention that a violation
of the Sherman ANTITRUST law could not
be concealed behind the patent laws OF