The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-02-27
GOVERNMENT DROPS CASE
IN BATHTUB TRUST TRIAL
,contiuued from Page One,

and w. A. Myler, OF the STANDARD
Sanitary Manufacturing Co.; T. II.
Barnes. and Barnes Manufacturing
Co.; Jesse T. Duryea and Colwell
Lead Co.; Reid Carpenter and Hum.
phreys Manufacturing Co.: A. n
traucnheim and Kerner Manufacture
ing CO.; Max Goebel and j. L. Mott
Iron works; Lloyd G. McCrum ana IL.
7. Gates and the McCrum.Howeil Co. /:
Frank G. Borden, and the Natiogal
sanitary Manufacturing Co.; l.. &.
Manufacturing Co.; Anton WeisKlt.
tel and A. Woiskittel & Son Co.; IL.
VI. Hoelscher and John Clifford, and
the l.. Wolff Manufacturing Co.. and
J. L. Wright and the Wheeling ltnau.
eled Iron Co.
-Four individuals and three copper.
atoms pleaded no1o contendero be
fore the trial commenced"
The court acquiesced in the re-
quest,
Following the announcement of tGc
prosecution, Robert b. Honeyman, OF
New York. chief COUNSEL for the ,le-
tense, made a motion TO have an Or
der OF acquittal entered by the CO ~
in respect 10 all the remaining de-
PENDANTS, on the ground that the gov
eminent had failed TO make out a
case against them. ss'.- 'a'a
The court said he would hear argu-
ments in The matter, and then OK
cused the jury until $3.50 o'clock, Wed.
nesday morning. when, 1t is expected,
the decision OF the court will be an
nounced
Mr.. Honeyman, speaking on his mo-
ton 10 quash the proceedings main
tanned that the prosecution had pro-
duced no evidence that the defendants
had done anything In restraint Of
trade or were even guilty OF anything
10 warrant their being indicted. tic
pointed out the value OF the patent
dredge under which the members OF
the defendants association were IL
censed 10 operate. The dredge was
capable OF improving the product OF
bathtub factories. and the manutac-
turers were justified in forming an
association for the production OF bet
ter market material. Mr.. HoneymGn
argued. He drew attention 10 the
testimony OF government witnesses 10
the effect that the market was az
fected by defective enameled Iron.
ware in the fall of 1909, and that the
manufacturers, in getting together,
were merely trying to bring about a
Standardization In the product or the
factories. In this respect, the COM
bine was a benefit TO the public, Mr..
Honeyman contended. The license
agreement was perfectly legal and
was, indeed, praiseworthy idea,
argued Mr.. Honeyman further.
Mr.. Honeyman also quoted a num-
Der of supreme court decisions in his
contention that the formation OF the
combination was lawful, and that
there was no conspiracy about IL, as
represented by the prosecution. In
summing up. he suggested 10 the
court that the main point for him TO
pass on was, Whether the govern
ment had made out such plain case
against the defendants that the jury
would not have to guess at the al
legged guilt of the defendants.
Henry E. Bodman will continue the
argument for the defense, this after
noon, and the prosecution will then
offer its reasons why the case should
be continued.
The last witnesses presented by
the prosecution were Fred Cook, OF
the Blairsville Enameled Ware Co.,
Evansville, Pa; William III. Lose,
superintendent of the Iron City San
itary Manufacturing Co., OF Ze-
llenople, Pa; Joseph II. Inman,- Of
the Fairbanks company, and Arthur
Kroos, OF the j. NJ. Kohler Sons
Manufacturing Co. All of these wit
nesses were questioned in regard to
the boost in prices enameled ware
Is said To- have taken after the
license agreement went into effect,
Juno 6, 1910 One OF them, Kroos,
said there had been an advance OF
from IA TO 25 per cent. on goods sold
by the defendants.