New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-07
Supreme Court Sharpens Fed
eraI Weapon in Deciding
Against Patten and Others
in Cotton Case.
DEFENDANTS TO BE TRIED
Finding Means End of Neteoric
Operations to Grow Wealthy
Overnight" Declares So
licitor General-Three
Justices Dissent.

NNS"~SCp - - ~ WV
From The Tribune EureauI
WashiEgto ton. Jan. G.--The effective
ness of the Sherman antitrust law WAS
further accentuated to-day 10y tn,
United states Supreme Court. which
made it weapon against the corner.
ing Of the market in any commodity
The ruling was embodied in decision
in the so-callcd cotton corner case.
The court held that the main counts
in the Indictment against James y
Pattcn, w. +. Brown, Frank r. IIayuc
and Eugene g. Scales, alleged partici-
cotton market. came under the prohib-
tion of the antitrust law as they were
interpreted by the United States Cir
cult Court for the Southern District OF
stand trial for criminal violation of the
Sherman act as a result Of these fnan-
cial operations. which. as charged. were
calculated to yield a profit of SlO,-
0O0CgC.
Even If the Supreme Court init
mated i'm its 'ccision to-day that there
was some question as 10 tho construc-
ton placed upon the two main counts
of the indictment by the lower court, IL
was none the less emphatic in its dec
laration that the cornering OF any com
modify was violation of the antitrust
law.
in this respect il affords "A remedy
which the state and federal govern
ments have long been seeking against
speculative market manipulation and
paves the way for the issuance OF in
functions 10 prevent the cornerlng oi
the market in any commodity in the
future.
Ends Corners, Says Bullitt.
In a statement made Immediately
after the decision was handed down
Solicitor General Bullitt said that to-
days decision means the end OF mete-
oric operations 10 grow wealthy over
night by securing control over tho
available supply Of cotton, wheat lard
or any similar article Of commerce.
Justice Van Devanter announced the
opinion of the court Justice Lurton
delivered a dissenting opinion. In which
Chief Justice White and Justice Holmes
concurred. The majority OF the court
held that the Circuit Court for South
orn New York had decided that the
Indictment charged a Withholding
of the cotton from the market, neces-
sary element of a corner, as admitted
by the government.
The minority held that the Circuit
Court found the indictment did not 80
charge and for that reason the indict-
ment was faulty. According 10 all the
justices. the correctness If the hold
ing Of the Circuit Court as to the in
dictment charging a withholding.
and as to the suffciency of the indict-
ment on other technical points. had to
be accepted at this time without ques-
ton by the Supreme Court.
Points May Come Up Again.
The points thus left undecided to-
dav NAV be made the basis for bring
ing the case to the court again if the
defendants are convicted on trial.
In his opinion Justice Van DevanteI
dealt at length with the defence that
the accused men were not engaged In
interstate commerce. He said.
The first section Of the act. upon. which
the counts are founded, is not confined 10
voluntary restraint, as where persons en-
gag,d in interstate trade or commerce
Themselves. but includes as we'll invOlun
tarV restraints. as where persons not SO
engaged conspire 10 compel action bN
others or to create artificial conditions
which necessarily impede or burden tn'
| due course of such trade or commerce OF
| res,rict the common liberty To engage
| therein.
The Standard oil case was quoted II
support Of this doctrine. Justice Van
Devanter replied TO the argument tha'
running a corner stimulates instead oi
Restraints interstate trade by saying
! that TINS might bt iuc ioi '''N' '
that the corner was forbidden by the
Sherman act because it thwarted the
usual operation Of the law OF supply
and demand. withdrew the commodity
from the normal current OF trade, en-
hanced prices and produced practically
the same evils as the suppression oil
competition.
He said that the statute did not APP
ply to corners Of purely intrastate
trade. nor where the effect upon inter
etate trade was indirect, and added
that in the present case the trade was
nat intrastate and the effect was not
indirect.