The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-01-11

as result of which the prices would
be enhanced and ultimately become
arbitrary and excessive. The con-
spiracy was described as calculated
to yield s1O,OOO,OOO in profits.
The alleged violation of the Sher-
man law was set forth In the indict-
ment in eight different ways, as
many counts. the defendants being
liable to trial on any one. Before the
defendants could be placed on trial
the United States circuit for southern
New York held insufficient four
counts, as not stating an offense The
government appealed from that de-
cision to the supreme court because
OF similarity in the four counts held
insufficient, the controversy in the
supreme court narrowed down to the
validity of the third and seventh
counts.
The third count had been attack ed
successfully as insufficient because 1t
merely stated an alleged conspiracy
to buy cotton and omitted to charge
agreements to withhold cotton or to
sell in any particular manner. The
lower court said the defendants were
not charged with power to con-
troll the market. The seventh count
was the one specifically charging the
defendants with running a corner"
on cotton futures.
| The lower court held that such a
corner did not produce effects direct
enough on interstate commerce to
bring it within the Sherman anti
trust law.
Justice Van Devanter, in announcing
the opinion, said the supreme court
at this time. under the law, was not
authorized to review the lower courts
construction or in expectation Of the
indictment as such. but only the lower
courts Interpretation of the statutes.
Therefore. he added, the court passed
by those points raised by the govern
ment.
The justice said that the govern
ment had conceded in arguing the
case that in order to effect a corner
there must be a withholding from
sale of cotton bought and, therefore
the controversy turned upon whether
the indictment charged a withhold
ing"
AS TO that point, the decision OF
the lower court could not be reviewed
at this time, the justice added. though
the finding might be reviewed if the
case were proceeded with.
At present the decision of the lower
court on this point must be accepted
as correct, he said. He then passed
to the holding Of the lower court that
running a corner" was not a viola
ton of the law, because the restraint
was too indirect and not voluntary.
I'VE hold that the restraint need
not be voluntary, but in the light OF
the Standard Oil case may be involun-
tary"
Justice Van Devanter said that the
injury to the public was the same
involuntary.
Justice Lurton announced a dissent.
ing opinion, in which Chief Justice
White and Justice Holmes concurred
The case will now go back to the
federal court OF southern New York
for trial or other procees ings. The
decision of the supreme court settle:
the important question that a corner
OF any commodity is a restraint Of in.
terstate commerce, and may be a vio'
latlon Of the Sherman antitrust law
Today's decision does not determine
the question OF guilt Of Patten or other
defendants, but sends the case back
To the lower court for trial on the
facts with the important principle OF
law established that if corner in
cotton Is proved, the Sherman statute
is violated.
In his opinion. Justice Van Devan-
ter said:
1T well may be that running a cor
ncr tends for "a time to stimulate com
petition. but this does not prevent IT
from being forbidden restraint, for il
also operates TO thwart the commodity
from the normal current of trade. to
enhance the price artihcally, to ham
per users and consumers in satisfying
their needs, and to produce practically
the same evils as does to suppression
Of competition"
Solicitor General Bullitt, who ar
gued the case for the government
made this statement today in regard