Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-01-06
HITS At CAPITALISTS DEFINES A CORNER
Samuel Gompers Discusses Supreme Court Says 1t Is Re-
Dynamite Convictions. strant of Commerce.
ANSWER TO CRITICISMS RULES IN PATTEN CASE
Alude Conspiracy Murder
Liberty of Toier"
FLING AT JUDGE ANDERSON THREE DISSENTING OPINIONS
T.
Senate mmitte in L
o njuncto Invou
Supreme Court Says 1t Is a Re-
Straint of Commerce.
RULES IN PATTEN CASE
Question of Guilt in Cotton Matter
Not Determined.
THREE DISSENTING OPINIONS
Injury to Public the Same Whether
Restraint Is Voluntary or
Involuntary.

BY upholding certain disputed counts
charged with violation of the Sherman
antitrust law in running a so-called cot
ton corner. the Supreme Court today sent
| the case against the men to trial in the
lower courts.
The decision of the Supreme Court
settles the important question that a
corner" of any commodity is a restraint
of interstate commerce and may be vio-
lation of the Sherman antitrust law. To-
days decision does not determine the
question of guilt of Patton or the other
defendants, but sends the case back to
with the important principle Of law
established that If corner I'm cotton is
proved, the Sherman statute is violated.
Indicted in New York.
Patten, Eugene c. Scales. Frank 3.
Hayne and William 2. Brown were in
dicted in New York on charges of con-
spring January l. 1910. to corner" cot
ton by extensive buying on the New York
Cotton Exchange, as result of which
the price would be enhanced and ult-
mately to sell at arbitrary and excessive
prices. The conspiracy was described as
calculated to yield s1O,OOOOO0 in profits.
/ The alleged violation of the Sherman
law was set forth in the Indictment in
eight different ways in as many counts.
the defendants being liable for trial on
any one. Before the defendants could be
placed on trial. the United States circuit
court for southern New York held in
sufficient four counts. as not stating an
offense The government appealed from
that decision to the Supreme Court.
Similarity in Counts.
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 attacked sue
cessfully as insufficient because it merely
stated an alleged conspiracy to buy cot
ton. and omitted to charge agreements
TO Withhold cotton or to sell in any par
ticular manner.
The lower court said the defendants
were not charged with power to control
the market. The seventh count was the
one specifically charging the defendants
with running corner" on cotton fu-
lures. The lower court held that such a
corner did not produce direct enough ef-
fects on Interstate commerce to bring it
within the Sherman antitrust law
Justice Van Devanter in announcing
the opinion, said the court at this time
under the law. was not authorized to re-
view the lower courts construction or
Interpretation Of the indictment as such,
but only Of the lower courts interpreta,
tion OF the statute. Therefore he added
the court passed by those points raised
by the government.
Withholding From Sale.
He said that the government had con-
ceded in arguing the case that in order
to effect a corner there must be
withholding" from sale Of the cotton
bought. Therefore. he said, the con-
troversy turned upon whether the in
to that point. the decision of the lower
court could not be reviewed at this
time. the justice added although the
point might be reviewed IL the case
was proceeded with. For the present
decision on this point. he said, the hold
ing Of the lower court must be accepted
as correct.
He then passed to the holding Of the
lower court that running a corner was
not violatio nof the law because the re-
straint was too indirect and not volun-
tary.
Voluntary Restraint.
I'VE hold that the restraint need not
be voluntary. but in the light of the
Standard Oil case may be involuntary"
Justice Vandevanter said that the in
jury to the public was the same whether
the effect was voluntary or involuntary
Justice Lurton announced a dissenting
opinion. in which Chief Justice White and
Justice Holmes concurred.
The case will now go back to the fed
eral court of southern New York for
trial or other proceeding.