The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-02-04
UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY co.
NOT A TRUST
The Supreme Court So Holds
and the Government Suf-
fers It's First Big Defeat
in Recent Anti Trust Cam
paign.
b. ASSOCIATED PREss.

Washington, Feb. 3.-The govern
ment today suffered its first big de-
feat in the recent antitrust cam
raign when the supreme court held
that the ofaciais of the United Shoe
Machinery Company had not violated
the Sherman antitrust law by organ
ling that company. The court, how
ever, did not pass upon legality OF the
system by which the company leases
machines on terms that no "independ-
ents machinery be used.
The action Of the supreme court
today grew out Of the Massachusetts
federal courts annulling one OF two
indictments brought against the shoe
machinery officials. The Massachu-
sets court took the position that the
indictment did not state an offense
under the Sherman law. The govern-
ment appealed to the supreme court
by virtue OF the criminal appeals act
Of 1907, on the ground that It did
state an ofTense.
The government in the indictment
alleged that Sidney w. WinsIow, Ed
ward p. Hurd, George W. Brown, Will
liam Barbour and Elmer p. Howe
violated the law, first by organizing
the United Shoe Machinery corpora
ton and second BY q system OF lead
ing their machines whereby patrons
were compelled to promise not to use
any machinery made by independents
and to use only that made by the al
legged combine.
The charge was that the shoe ma
ehinery corporation took over the
business with the Consolidated and
Mckay Lastin Machine Company,
manufacturing company. manufactur-
ing 10 per cent Of ali heeling machines
and so percent. Of all metaliic-fasten-
ing machines: and on the Goodyear
Shoe Manufacturing Company. manu-
featuring 50 per cent Of all the welt
sewing and out-sole stitching ma
chimes
The government claimed this put
about 80 per cent OF the business Of
manufacturing shoe machinery into
one concern, and that being an undue
corporation" Of the trade was viola
ton of the law. II did not claim that
there had been unfair competition as
in the Standard Oil or tobacco eases.
The shoe machinery officials de-
clared the supreme court could not
ACNACU tA4E aLAA9AA OA -S4I NA0S19A~tAA-
sets courts because the rinainal ap-
peaIs at was repealed by not being
included in the judicial code Of 1912,
and also claimed that the organization
OF the corporation was a normal trade
development. They further urged that
the groups consolidated into the CO
poration were competing and that
the leasing system was justified by the
patent laws.
Justice Holmes. announcing the
unanimous decision of the court. said
that the lower court regarded the in
dictment a sincerely referring to the
organization Of the company, not to
the tying clause" lease. That being
the case. he added. the supreme court
must accept that Interpretation with
out question He said this reduced
the case to a narrow compass and
pointed out the several groups COM
bined in the organization Of the
United States Shoe Machinery were
non-competitive. The justice de-
clared the Sherman law did not con-
template the doing Of business BY the
smallest possible isolated units.
Two indictments were brought
against the shoe machinery officials.
The decision today concerned only
one OF these indictments.