Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-01-07
Is Opinion Of U.S.. Supreme
Court as to ''CornerS, y
Holds CORNERS" on Interstate
Commodities Violate Law.
indictments Returned by n. Y. Court
As to COTTON Corner" Valid.

Washington, Jan. 6.-The supreme
court of the United States, today, laid
down the far-reaching principle that
Corners of interstate commodities
such as articles of clothing and food,
are in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law, and held that, as far as the
Sherman law was concerned, the in
dictment in the New York federal
corut of James Patten. Eugene G
Scales, Frank H. Hayne and William
p. Brown for "Conspiring to run AN
alleged cotton corner" was valid.
The case against them was sent
back for trial or other proceedings.
Justice Van DeNenter announced the
opinion of the court.
Justice Lurton delivered dissent
ing opinion in which Chief Justice
White and Justice Holmes concurred.
The majority of the court held that
the circuit court for southern New
York had decided that the indictment
charged Withholding" of the cot
ton from the market, necessary ele-
ment of a corner as admitted by the
government. The minority held that
the circuit court found the. indict
ment did not so charge and for that
reason the Indictment was faulty. Ae-
cordins to all the Justices the cor
rectness Of the holding of the circuit
court as 10 the indictment. charging
a Withholding, and as to the suffi-
CHENEY of the indictment on other
technical points had to be accepted at
this time without question by the SUI
preme court.
The points thus left undecided, to-
day, may be made the basis for bring
ing the case to the court again, II
the defendants are convicted on trial
Solicitor General Built, who pre-
sented the governments side of the
case to the court. issued a statement
after the decision in which he said
that at least a way had been found
to stop the running up Of prices by
men, who sought To corner the mar
ket not only OF cotton, but wheat,
corn, lard, and other commodities. In
his opinion, Justice Van DeVenter
dealt at length with the defence that
the accused men were not engaged in
interstate commerce.
The first section of the act, upol
which,. the counts are founded said
he, lis not confined TO voluntary re-
straint, as where persons engaged In
interstate trade or commerce agree
to suppress competition among them
selves, but includes as we'll voluntary
restraints as where persons not so
engaged conspire to compel action by
others or to create artificial conditions
which necessarily impede or burden
the due course of such trade or COM
merce or restrict the common liberty
to engage there in"
The STANDARD Oil, case was quoted in
support of this doctrine. Government Of
fieials claim that this language will mate
rally strengthen their fight against com
binations violating the law. Justice Van
DeVetter replied to the argument that
running a corner stimulates or restraints
Interstate trade. He said that this might
be true for a time, but that the corner
was forbidden by the act because 1t
thwarted the usual operation of laws OF
supply and demand withdrew the COM
modify from the normal current of trade,
enhanced prices and produced practically
the same evils as the suppression of com
petition.
He said that the statute did not apply
to corner of purely intrastate trade, nor
where the effect upon Interstate trade
! was indirect, and added that in the pres
ept case the trade was not intrastate and
the effect was not indirect.
1T Mas conspiracy to run a corner in
the market. said he. Zine commodity
to be cornered was cotton, n product of
fthe, Southern states, largely used and
consumed in the Northern states. 1t was
subject of interstate trade. The cor
ner was to be conducted on the Cotton
Exchange in New York City,, but ny
means which would enable the conspira-
tors TO obtain control of the available
supply and to enhance the price to all
buyers in every market of the country.
Bearing in mind that such was the ma
ture. object and scope of the conspiracy
we regard ii altogether plain that by its
necessary operation it would directly and
materially impede and burden the due
course of trade and commerce among the
states and therefore inilict upon the pub
lie the injuries which the antitrust act
is designed to prevent"
The court said that it made no differ
ence that there was no allegation of a
specific intent to refrain interstate trade.
1.-The conspirators must be held to have
intended the necessary direct conse-
quenees of their acts and cannot be heard
to say to the contrary" Justice Van De-
Venter explained.