Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-02-08
j. S. MOVES TO
KILL MONOPOLY IN
SHOE MACHINERY
Third Suit to Break
Trust Begun In
Trenton.
SAY UNITED co. FOUGHT
COMPETITORS ILLEGALLY
Manufacturers Were Forced, II
Is Charged, to Use Its Ma
chimes Exclusively.

TRENTON. N. J.. Feb. s.-The
Federal government made its third
antitrust move against the United
Shoe Machinery Company in a civil
suit filed here today. charging the
so-called trust with welding an al
legged monopolistic power ana unfair
trade tactics to force the Keighley
Company-a competitor-into an un-
lawful contract for the leasing. sale
and fixing the price of an "inseam
trimming machine"
The United States District Court
here was asked to terminate the con-
tract under which the Keighley Com
pany gave the United Company the
exclusive right to lease to shoe manu-
facturers the 'inseam trimming ma
chine" the patent of which is held
by the Keighley Company. The eff
feet of the agreement is declared to
be ''to perpetuate and extend mo-
nopoly of the shoe machinery in
dustry in the United Shoe Machinery
Company of New Jersey"
Following are the defendants to
the suit: United Shoe Machinery
Company. Boston; Keighley Com
pany, Inc, yineland. N. j.; Sidney
w Winslow, Orleans. Mass; Ed
ward P. Hurd, Newton, Mass: I:
Charles Percy Keighiey, William Bot
tomley Keighley and Charles Keigh-
ley, of Vineland, n. J..
IT, r,af;tfan 10 = eo-
we're arraignment of the trusts al
legged unfair practices. The vigorous
enforcement of its methods is declar-
ed to have driven practically all COM
petitors from the shoe machinery in
dustry, giving the $25.0e0,0o0 United
Company control of more than 80
per cent. Of the trade. The big cor
poration- Is desafibed by the govern
ment as follows in the bill:
Threatened Competitors.
"By misrepresentation and threats
it deprives its competitors of their
customers. 1t has threatened its com
petitors that it will use its enormous
resources and powers to take away
their customers BY threats IL has
prevented competing concerns from
entering the business. 1t has given
rebates to shoe manufacturers to in
duce them to use exclusively its ma
chimes. 1t has discontinued the sale
to shoe manufacturers of all the most
important machines and unlawfully
devised and put into leases and
licenses unreasonable and oppressive
provisions, which agreements shoe
manufacturers are compelled to exe-
cute in order to obtain machinery
with which to equip their factories
The company is accused of acquir-
ing patents for valuable inventions
and not using them for long periods.
Persons assigning patents to the
trust are alleged to have been re-
uuired to agree to transfer for
specified time all their future patents
or invention of shoe machinery.
To destroy the competition of the
Keighley concern. the United Com
pany is charged with employing
alleged unfair methods to make it
difficult for Its competitor to conduct
its business successfully.
Exclusive Rights to Lease.
The petition points out that the
contract gives the United Company
exclusive right 10 put out on lease
all the ''inseam trimming machines
owned or controlled or hereafter
made or acquired by the Keighley
company. The two corporations
agree not to encourage any other
person or corporation to enter into
business in connection with 'inseam
trimming machines except in ac-
cordance with the terms Of the con-
tract. While the Keighley company
retains the right to sell the machines
the contract prohibits it from ac-
cepting a price less than $3.50. The
keighley company is required under
the agreement to pay 5000 to the
United company for every rapid in
seam trimming machine it sells.
The petition is signed by Attorney
General Wickersham, James A. Fow-
Ter. assistant to the attorney gen.
eral; William S. Gregg. special as
sistant, and John B. vreeland,
United States attorney at Trenton.
The contract was entered into only
last September. There is pending at
Boston a civil suit for the dissolu-
ton of the United Shoe Machinery
Company, and one count of indict-
ments returned against its officers for
the alleged violation of the Sherman
law. The United States Supreme
Court recently dismissed other in
dictments filed against the same de-
PENDANTS.