The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-02-12
SHOE TRUST IS LAWFUL.
SUPREME COURT GIVES SHOE
MACHINTRY CORPORATION
"CLE.AN BILL"
Question OF Whether System OF
Leases Constitute Monopoly Not
Passed Upon.

washington, Feb, 5,-The United
States Supreme Court today pronounc-
ed the United Shoe Machinery Com
pany. known far and wide as the Shoe
Machinery Trust, a lawful corporation
and entirely within the meaning and
intent Of the herman act.
The victory for the company may
prove to be only partial. however, for
while the court relieves the officers OF
the corporation from the criminal
charge by dismissing the indictment
against them. IL dose not pass upon
the system OF leases whereby the cor
poration maintains its grip upon the
manufacturers OF shoes.
The Supreme Court upholds the
opinion OF Judge Putnam, of Boston,
who had dismissed the criminal in
dictments against five officers OF the
company brought under the Sherman
Antitrust law.
The position Of Solicitor General
Bullitt was rejected. In his brief for
the Government Mr.. Bullitt declared
that the action OF the trust in placing
a large percentage OF the machinery
business under one control. or, as he
described Il, an undue proportion"
Of IL In one hand, the corporation had
violated the law and the officers were
crimlnally liable.
Undoubtedly the court In this case
again applied the rule of reason" as
was done in the Standard oil and
Tobacco Trust suits. And the new
opinion seems To most lawyers who
have seen the text of II to mark to
a greater extent than any previous
order the limitation OF the Sherman
law. as this court interprets that act.
The Government will prosecute the
officials OF the company under the one
remaining indictment. II was an
nounced at the Department OF Just
Ice after the courts decision had been
delivered. That indictment charges
monopoly and unfair competitive
methods. and Is declared by officials
to be the most important and strong
est OF those returned against the COM
pany.
The Government I'm the indictment
dismissed alleged that Sidney w.
Winslow. Edward p. Hurd, George w.
Brown. William Barbour and Elmer
II. Howe had violated the law, first,
by organizing the United Shoe Ma
chinery Corporation. and. second. by
n system OF leasing their machines
whereby patrons were compelled to
promise not to use any machinery
made by independents and to use
only that made by the alleged COM
bine.
The charge was that the shoe ma
chinery corporation took over the
business OF the Consolidated and Nc
Kay Lasting Machine Company, man.
ufacturing 60 per cent Of all lasting
machines; the Mckay Shoe Machin-
cry Company, manufacturing 70 per
cent OF all heeling machines and so
per cent Of all metallic fastening ma
chimes. and OF the Goodyear Shoe
Machinery Company. manufacturing
so per cent OF all the welt-sewing and
outsole-stitching machines.
The Government claimed this put
about so per cent OF the business Of
manufacturing shoe machinery into
one concern and that being an "un-
due proportion" OF the trade was
violation OF the law. Ii did not claim
that there had been unfair competition
as in the Standard Oil or Tobacco
cases
The shoe machinery officials declar-
ed the Supreme Court could not re-
view the action OF the Massac husetts
courts because the Criminal Appeals
act vas repealed by not being includ-
ed In the judicial code OF 10 :, and
also contended that the organization
OF the corporation was a normal trade
development. They further urged
that the groups consolidated into the
corporation wero non-competing and
thas the leasing system was justified
by the patent laws.
Justice Holmes. delivering the
unanimous opinion OF the Supreme
Court. said the lower court regarded
the indictment as merely referring to
the organization OF the company. not
Co the tying clause" leases. That be-
ing the case. the Supreme Court must
accept that Interpretation without
nu.stfcr