The Bon Homme County independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1904-1913, 1913-01-09
pATTEN LOSES CASE
IN SUPREME COURT
Cotton Plunger's Case Sent
Back to Lower Court for
Trial.

washington, Jan. by uphoIdina
certain disputed counts against James
A. Patten and others, charged with a
Violation or the Sherman anti-trust law
in running a cotton corner. the supreme
court Of the United States sent the case
against the men back for trial in the
lower court.
Patten, Eugene Gates. Frank b.
Hayne and VIM. III. Brown were In
dicted In New York on charges OF o
spring on january 4. 1910. 10 corner
cotton BY extensive buying ON the New
York cotton exchange. as a result OF
which 'the price would be enhanced
and ultimately bring a~rbitratiye and
excessive prices"
The conspiracy was described as call
cuIating TO yield $40, 0oO. 900 in profits.
The alleged violation of the Sherman
law set forth I'm the Indictment In eight
different ways In as many counts. the
Defendants being liable FOR trial on any
n but the United States circuit court
for southern New York held four counts
Insufficient, as not stating an offense.
The government appealed from that
decision to the supreme court.
Fight On Two Counts.
Because OF similarity in the 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
successfully as insufficient because IL
merely stated an alleged conspiracy to
buy cotton, and omitted to charge
agreements TO withhold cotton or to
sell In n particular manner. The
lower court said the defendants were
not charged with power TO control the
market" "
The seventh count was the one spe-
ciically charging the defendants with
running q corner on cotton futures.
The lower court held that such cor
ner did not produce effect direct
enough on interstate commerce to
bring it within the Sherman ANTITRUST
law.
Justice yanderyenter in announcing
the opinion said the supreme court at
this time, under the law was not au-
thorixed to review the lower courts
construction or Interpretation OF the
Indictment as such, but only the lower
court's Interpretation OF the statute.
Therefore, he added, the court passed
by these points raised by the govern
ment. sE aAn.t "
Back to Lower Court.
The justice said the government had
conceded In arguing the case that in
order to effect a corner there must be
a withholding from sale Of the cot
ton bought. Therefore he said, the con
troycrsy turned upon whether the in
dictnlent charged a withholding"
AS 20 that point the decision of the
lower court could not be reviewed at
this time, the justice added although
the point might be reviewed if the case
We're proceeded with. For the present
the decision OF the superior court must
be considered as sufficient.
He then passed to the holding OF
the lower court that running corner"
was not q violation of the law because
the restraint was too indirect and not
voluntary. we hold that the restraint
need not be voluntary, but in the light
" the Standard OIL case may be in
voluntary" .A#
Justice handkerchief said that the
injury to the public was the same
whether the effect was voluntary. or
Involuntary.
Justice Lurton announced a dissent
ing opinion i'm which Chief Justice
White and Justice Holmes concurred.
Tine Isl will now go back to the
federal court of southern New York
for trial or other proceeding.
The decision or the supreme court
settles the important question that a
corner of any commodity is a re-
straint Of interstate m and may
be a violation of the Sherman anti
trust law. Today's decision does not
determine the question OF the guilt
Of Patten or the other defendants, but
sends the case back to the lower court
for trial on the facts with the import
ant principle OF law established that
~ q corner I'M cotton is proved the
Sherman statute Is violated.
-#