The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-02-14
FATE OF BATH TUB TRUST
MEMBERS UP TO JURY
CONTINUED from PAGE One'


to inquire into ;heir motives or rea-
sons.
There are formally four counts in
the Indictment under which these
men are charged. but there are really
only two counts. the second including
the first and the fourth including the
third.
Judge Sessions then read portion
OF the sherman act under which the
charge Is brought, and explained the
terms involved. tie also read a por-
ton OF the criminal statutes which
states that all members OF a conspir-
acy are liable FOR the acts OF any one
OF them taken in furtherance OF the
purpose OF the conspiracy.
The restraint OF trade which is
prohibited in the sherman act, must
be direct and unreasonable" said the
court 1T must not be merely Incl
dental or indirect The patent which
was granted TO Arrott on the dredge
gave him the right to monopolize the
use and manufacture OF that article
and 10 dictate any lawful terms upon
which t might be used The patent
did not, however, confer any right
TO monopolize the manufacture or
enamel ironware.
The so-called license agreement
was unlawful and invalid and diu
violate the Sherman act. II was not
unlawful because il tended 10 stand
ardize the articles manufactured by
these defendants nor because il tend
ed 10 improve the condition of the
trade in enameled ironware II was
not unlawful because il fixed list
prices, but because 1t fixed the dis
counts the actual prices at which the
and jobbers agreed TO
iell the goods.
You must bear in mind that every
estraint OF competition is not re
traint OF trade necessarily, and you
must be convinced that these deten-
ants conspired to work an unreason-
bic restraint OF trade, to convict |
hem. An agreement which fixes non |
prices and non-competi- |
I've discounts is generally an unrea- |
enable restraint Of trade.
But you must bear In mind that J
1ese defendants are not charged in
be indictment with making the IL
ense agreement. They are charged
18th entering into a conspiracy prior
D the signing of this agreement to
estrain trade. You may consider
he jobbers agreements which were
igned in June, and the manufacture
rs agreements which were signed
lay s, only as they bear upon this
onspiracy 10 accomplish an unlawful
purpose made prior to the acts al
eyed in the indictment.
The most important question
which you have TO determine is did
some OF these defendants prior 10 the
NJ. Clemens meeting enter into an
combination or conspiracy
% restrain trade.
III You answer this question in the 1,
negative, you must acquit all these !
defendants If you answer IL in the
Affirmative, you must consider wheth-
er the meeting in Mt. Clemens was
an act in furtherance of the purpose
Of this unlawful agreement, and II ,
you answer that question in the az
irmative, you must consider with re- :
spect 10 the defendants, Theodore :
Ahrens, L. l.. Dawes, J. T. Duryea
and McVey and Walker whether the /
was a continuing conspir-
acy and continued up 10 the time that
.hese defendants joined H." l.,
Some Of the defendants were much
encouraged by the charge OF Judge
sessions. One OF them said: 1T /,
means acquittal,' though the general
opinion was that another disagree
nent would be the result.