Pine Bluff daily graphic. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) 1893-1942, 1913-12-27
Pine BLUFF firm
IS AMONG Them
Wholesale Lumber Compan-
les Found Gully of Vio-
lating Missouri Law
ARE HEAVILY FINED
Bradley Lumber Company Of Warren
Also Included-Hadley Filed
the Suits in 1908.
ARE HEAVILY FINED

lie LOHB-belI LUMBER Company, OI
which the Arkansas Short Leaf Lum-
Der Company Of Pine Bluff is
branch, was among the big whole
sale lumber concerns against which
the Missouri Supreme Court recently
issued decree of custer. The Long
Ben Company was fined $4,000 for
violating the state antitrust law, but
in all cases where fines were i'm
posed the forfeiture and custer were
suspended.
The supreme court suspended it's
decree of custer against the twenty
companies named on condition they
pay the fines imposed here after con-
forming to the antitrust laws of the
state. The fines aggregated $780,
900. In addition to the suspended
custer DEGREES issued, the licenses of
four other companies not incorporat-
ed in Missouri were revoked and fines
were imposed.
applies to the following companies.
which also are fined the amounts Inc
dictated:
Arkansas Lumber company, fined
5000; ALI Bennett Lumber company
$4,000: Bowman Hicks Lumber COM
pany, $4,000; Bradley Lumber COM
Lumber company, $4,000; Colonial
Lumber and Timber company, $10,-
900; Central Coal and Coke company.
$50 900; C. J. Carter Lumber company
$4,000; Dixie Lumber company, So
900; Foster Lumber company $4,000;
George w. Mills Timber and Lum-
Der company, $1,000; Grayson-Mc-
Leod Lumber company, 100000; Hogg
Harris Lumber company, $4,000;
5000; Long-Bell Lumber company,
S5O, 900; Lewis Werner Sawmill COM
pany, $4,000; Missouri Land and Lum-
Der exchange company, $4,000; Mis-
souri, Lumber and Mining company.
$50 900; The Ozan Lumber company,
$4,000; Van Cleve Lumber company
$4,000.
| The decree of the court was issued
! in accordance with the recommends
ton of a special commissioner, who,
after taking testimony, reported that
the companies had entered into an
illegal agreement to control the price
of lumber and limit it's production.
The commissioner found that the
companies had violated the law In
several ways:
BY using what was known as an
association price list.
| BY curtailing the output of lum-
Der in 1904 and 1908 for the purpose
of increasing the price of yellow pine
lumber.
BY entering into what was known
as the joint trade relations agreement
in 1904 between members of the yell
low Pine Manufacturers association
and members of various retail dealers
associations.
By blacklitihg certain retailers who
did not conform to trade ethics" by
dividing the territory and by refus-
ing to sell to consumers in carload
lots or to cooperate stores.
! The names of the foreign compan-
les whose licenses We're revoked and
e.,,oc s,,DOcod fo11Cw.
Chicago Lumber and Coal COM
pany, $4,000; Dierkes Lumber and
Coal company, $4,000; Freeman
Smith Lumber company, $1,000.
company was found not guilty be-
cause it was not definitely shown that
the concern was member of the
yellow Pine Manufacturers associa-
ton.
| The suits against the lumber COM
| panies were filed in 1908 b Herbert
Hadley the attorney general, acting
| in concert with the attorneys general
of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, who
filed similar suits in their states.
The reason the supreme court sus-
forth thus:
being of the opinion that there
are diverse degrees of guilt among
these respondents and that upon the
surface, at least, the Yellow Pine as
sociation has reformed the evils
which it long openly and flagrantly
practiced. we are of the opinion that
the ends OF Justice will be subserysd