New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-17

AGREED DECREE ASKED FOR
CORPORATION Not To Be Dis
solved. but Enjoined from
Unlawful Contracts
and Deals.

WASHINGTON. May 16.-Diherng from
other actions brought against alieSeu
trusts. n suit filed hy the Department Oh
Justice against the Aluminium Compan! OF
America in Pittsburgh to-day does not
seek dissolution. but rather seeks 10 pre-
vent a restraint of trade through contracts
and combinations which the department
alleges are unlawful.
II is the first suit against a combination
that docs not seek 10 dissolve the corpora
,ion in question The suit is friendly IN
nature: that is. the petition will he made
the basis for an agreed decree that VIII III
Join the company from monopollzlhg the
manufacture Of aluminium and It's pToducIS'
Full access 10 the books or the company
was given William r. Chantland, Spe"laI
assistant. who has active charge OF the
case. and the com. any was frank with the
government about its assets and business
methods.
It appears from the investigation ny the
government agents that prior 10 1917 ana
1859. when patents held Ivy the company
expired. the corporation had legitimate
monopoly. and that subsequently, 1t mas
maintained a monopoly through contracts
The patents in question greatly cheapehed
the production Of aluminium ana maze 'he
manufacture of aluminium products large
industry.
In the governments petition in equity 10
the United states Court for the western
District Of Pennsylvania. the company -
charged with being a monopoly restraining
interstate and foreign commerce IN Nlo'"-
tion of the sherman law. II Is declared TO
have acquired substantial control OF the
aluminium industry In the United states
and to have charged unreasonable hieh
prices and profits in its products
Monopoly Of eauxite.
~, co,ornment comedies that the com
nau,.'s ownership Of more than 20 per cent
90 tho known deposits OF bauxitc. the base
NJ aluminium. I'm the United States ana
Canada. suitable for the manufacture
,bo metal is not within itself unlawful
II is charged however that the prac''dl
MONOPOLY in both bauXite and the manu-
facturc Of aluminium which the company
legally enjoyed on the expiration Oh i'S
uatents for making aluminium III 1917 HdS
Ic.n maintained by unlawful agreements
and unfair methods toward competitors
I'll. cvtcnt of other bauxite deposits IN
,t, United States Is not known AT tHI7
time. but IT H. pointed out that there are
inc>haustiblc quantities abroad. when
could be placed al the disposal ot COM
ro,i,ors for aluminium manufacture, II the
restraints upon the trad" were removed.
Tho history Of the aluminium cooking
.uto1sl industry I'm the United States, says
the r,tiilon. is history ~ shipwr"chs
caused chiefly or contributed to by the
arbitrary. discriminatory and unfair deal
irrs ~ the defendant.
Tho agreed decree. which will j" entered
within a few DAYS Will follow the govern
,,.pt's PRAYER FOR restraints upon IN" COM
many This agreement. ohviating long
hattie IN the courts. was tho result OF
several weeks ~ negotiations between the
DEPARTMENT ~ Justice and the corporation.
The Aluminium Company Of America. IN
,,rporated In Pennsylvania originally as
th, Pittsburgh Reduction COMPANY, mas
,rnvyr. II Is pointed out. from a 5000
Capitalization iu l,S, until It's assets no"
are estimated al l.i.H'0o" y stock div-
dord # go per cent. or Sle."'""oo, was de-
cIalcd r 80
Control Of the Industry.