The chronicle=news., 1912-12-16
GOVT. LOSES AND
WINS IN COAL
SUIT

efuueuN tOuuS lObt I'm IIkut OeIoTc
the supreme court Of the United
States to have the anthracite coal
carrying railroads aud their affiiiat'
=. ;oxi companies declared to be In
:. General combination In violation OF
, = antitrust law.
II won victory in getting tho
ourt to strike down the 81 per cent
contracts whereby the railroad coal
companies buy the output OF lin
dependent" mines. Justice Lurton.
In announcing the opinion said these
contracts were plainly In violation
Of tho law.
The court also held the railroads
had violated the law by attempting
10 shut out OF the anthracite region u
competitive road through their con-
troll OF the Temple Iron company.
As to minor combinations OF rail-
roads and coal companies charged to
bc violating the law. the court dis.
missed the action. without prejudice
to future suits. because II held Il not
fair to require those groups to make
u defense In MI action primarily
against general combination.
Justices Day. hughes and Pitn.y
took no part In the decision. There
were no dissenting OpihiOns.
In an opinion annouccd BY Axso
cinte Justice l.urton. the court holds:
"first. that the general combina-
tion alleged by the government to
exist between the defendant roads
for an apportionmcnt for total ton
mage to the xcs board by an agree
msnt In the nature Of pooling ar
rsnEcment has not been established.
and, therefor. III. relief sought by
th- government upon assumption OF
such combination In denied.
Second. the court finds. however.
that the principal defendants did
combine. for the purpose OF cutting
out iron, the anthracite coal fields
projected independent line of rail-
road. the New York. Wyoming anil
Western railroad. and to accomplish,
that purpose Il Is found that the
stock oi the Timpie Iron company.
aud OF the Simpson and Watkins col
lcries. was acquired for the purpose
and with the Intent. no, OF normally
OF restraining Interstn,. commerce
and competition In transportation
which would have presumably come
out through the construction and
operation OF the proposed competing
line or railroad between the mines
aud tiicwatcr.
Third. the court holds that GER
tain contracts made with. producers
co, erinE between 20 and % per cent
Of the total annual supply Of coal.
known as the 65 per cent contracts
by which Such independent produc-
ers bound themselves to deliver the
output OF their mines or any other
mine which they might acquire. to
the railroad companies for 61 per
cent OF the average market price at
tidcwater. were also void bccaus, In
violation OF the antitrust act an abb
normal and Illegal restraints upon
Interstate commerce.
Fourth. the court rettcratcs the
declaration In the Standard Oil case
that an act OF congress does not for
bid or restrain the power TO make
normal and usual contracts TO fur
thcr trade BY resorting to all normal
methods. whether by agreement or
otherwise to accomplish such pur-
pose Nevertheless It holds that
acts which 1t finds In this case TO be
illegal the Temple Iron and sixty
five pcr cent contracts were not
within such class. but on the con-
ttary were abnormal In their char
sctcr and directly tended to and were
intended to illegally restrain trade
and commerce and therefore came
within tho statute as illustrated by
tho rulings In st. Louis Terminal!
association and Swift and Company
". United States"