New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-05-21
.FAVORS GOVERNMENT IN
SHOE MACHINERY SUIT
Judge Putnam Declines to
Limit Case to Proof of
Monopoly Plan.
MANY CONCERNS INVOLVED
Counsel for Alleged Trust De.
tends Tying Clause of
Leases, the Crux
of Action.

Boston. May 20.-Unrestricted inyestI.
cation into the acts OF the United Shoe
Machinery Company will be allowed the
government as a result of a ruling by
Judge William l.. Putnam to-day at the
opening of the suit TO dissolve the com.
pany under the Sherman act.
Charles +. Choate, jr.. of counsel for
the defence. requested the court to re-
strict the government TO proof of a plan
to monopoliZe the shoe machinery bus-
ness. If such plan never existed, he
said. the government would lose its case.
1T Is pretty dangerous for the court
TO restrict counsel in a case of this
character" said Judge Putnam. who is
presiding, with Judge Frederic Dodge
and Judge Arthur l.. Brown az special
court TO hear the case. 1T is dangerous
for US 10 intimate anything just now"
he added. but / would suggest that in
stead of taking up the time Of the court
counsel argue on facts so far as they re-
late to acts OF the companies operated
as incidental TO the shoe machinery
business"
OF the eleven defendant companies
nine were operated as incidental TO the
shoe machinery business conducted by
the United Shoe Machinery Company
and its holding company the United
Shoe Machinery Corporation.
Disposed of Fifty-five Concerns.
Through these eleven companies the
twenty-three individual defendants &C
quired from 1912. when the United Shoe
Machinery Company vas formed, 10 the
time the dissolution suit was brought in
1911. the business Of fifty-five individual
partnerships and corporations. which the
government charges were formerly in
competition with the defendants.
or these companies. some OF which were
absorbed while others were enlarged a.
going concerns and few fashioned into
new corporations, all were situated In
New England except the following.
Pearson & Bennion. Limited, Leicester,
England. John Richie. quebec; the f. q.
Farnham Brush Manufacturing Com
pany, Honesdale, Penn; the George A
Smith Machinery Company, Philadelphia;
J. X. Krieg & Co. New York; Booth
Brothers. Rochester; the Wentworth
Company and the RossMoyer Manu-
featuring Company. Cincinnati, and
Adams II. Frenzel. Halifax. Penn.
by acquiring the business Of these IN
divlduals. partnerships and corporations
the United Shoe Machinery Company
/ said William 5. Gregg. special assistant
to United States Attorney General Nc
Reynolds, in opening the prosecution,
secured control of IS per cent Of the
shoe machinery business which relates 10
the fastening OF the soles 10 the upper
on boots and shoes
Mr.. Choate. in opening the defence, de-
MED that the leases compelled shoe
manufacturers to use the company's ma
| chimes exclusively II they used one OF
them He said the government was in
error on that point
! While Mr.. Gregg was presenting the
government case Judge Putnam asked
| him what was 10 become Of the assets II
| the court ordered the United Shoe Ma
chinery Company and the holding COM
pany dissolved In the case OF the Union
Pacific and the Southern Pacific II was
clear what could be done-the properties
were distinct-but in the case before the
court he would like 10 get clear idea
OF the assets Of some Of the concerns
absorbed. He asked the question. he
said. not to require an answer, but TO
| impress upon the government the desira-
bility Of seeing through the case clearly
to the end.