The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-01-07
Far Reaching Principle
Laid Down by Supreme
Court.
OPINION GIVEN
IN PATTEN CASE
Indictment Held Valid, and
Lower Court Will Put 1t to
Trial-Decision Expected to
Strengthen Hands of Gov
eminent in Fight Against
Other Combinations.

: Washington, January Sine Su-
preme Court Of the United States to-
day laid down the far-reaching prin-
| cple that corners Of Interstate COM
, modties. such as articles OF clothing
and food are in violation Of the Sher-
man antitrust law, and held that. as
far as the sherman law was concerned.
the indictment in the New York Fed
eral court of James A. Patten. Eugene
G. Scales, Frank H. Hayne and VIII
liam z. Brown. for "conspiring TO run
an alleged cotton corner" was valid
The case against them was sent back
for trial or other proceedings.
Chief Justice DLssents.
Justice Vandevanter announced the
opinion Of the court. Justice burton
delivered a dissenting opinion. in which
Chief Justice White and Justice Holmes
concurred The majority of the court
held that the Circuit Court for South
ern New York had decided that the
Indictment charged a withholding OF
the cotton from the market neces-
sary element of corner" as ad-
mitted by the government. The minor
,ty held that the Circuit Court that
found the Indictment did not so charge.
and for that reason the indictment was
faulty. According TO all the justices,
the correctness of the holding Of the
Circuit Court TO the Withholding ana
the sufficiency Of the indictment has
70 be determined. The points thus left
undetermined to-day may De the OASIS
for bringing the case 10 the Supreme
I of Ia NJ n
victed.
Solicitor Bullitt issued statement.
| IN which he said that at least way
| had been found TO stop tho running up
of prices by men who sought. 10 corner
! the market, not only OF cotton, out
wheat corn and other comp ODDITIES.
| In his opinion Justice Vandevanter
| dealt at length with the defense that
| the accused men were not engaged IN
| interstate commerce
The first section OF the act, upon
| " hich the counts are founded. salo
| he. rs not confined 10 voluntary re-
| straint. as TO whether persons en-
aaGed in interstate trade or commerce
! agree TO suppress competition among
| themselves. but includes as wei IN
voluntary restraints, as where persons
not so engaged conspire TO compel &C
! ton by others or TO create artlnclaI
conditions which necessarily Impede
or burden the due course of such trade
| or commerce or restrict the common
| liberty to engage therein
The STANDARD Oil case was quoted
! in support of this doctrine Govern
ment officials claim this language will
! materially strengthen their hght
against combinations violating the
! law.
Thwarts Natural Laws.
Justice Vandevanter replied to the
argument that running corner
| stimulates instead Of restraints Inter
STATE trade. BY saying that this might
| he true for a time. but that the
| corner was fOrbidded by the act be
cause il thwarted the usual operation
CT laws OF supply and demand. with
drew the commodity from the normal
/ current Of trade. enhanced prices. ana
( produced practically the same evils
as the suppression OF competition he
| said the statute did not apply 10
| corners of purely interstate trade.
nor where the effect upon the inter
cate was direct. and added that In
! the present case the trade was not in
,.rstate. and the effect was not IN
| direct.
1t was conspiracy to run a cor
ner in the market" said he The
I commodity to be cornered was cotton
| a product OF the Southern states large
( * used and consumed in the Northern
states IL was a subject of Interstate
trade The corner was TO be conduct
ed on the Cotton Exchange in New
York CITY. but by means which would
/ enable the cOnspiratoTs to obtain con
troll Of the available supply and 20 en-
| hsnc. the prices to all buyers In eN-
cry market Of the country
Rearing in minc that such was
The nature. or object and scope Of the
conspiracy. we regard II altogether
I plain that by its necessary operation
! :, evoaId directly and materially i'm
I oede and burden the due course Of
trade ami commerce among the states.
and therefore inhict upon the public
I the Injuries which the antitrust act
I e designed to prevent"
The court said IL made no difference
that there was 10 allegation Of -spc-
cinc intent 20 restrain interstate trade
The conspirators must be held 60
have intended tie necessary ana d.
rect consequences Of their acts. AMI
| cannot be heard ~ say 60 the con-
t-ar.~ Justice Naadevanter explained