The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-01-07
pdictment Against Patten,
Scales, Hayne and Brown
Declared Valid
THEIR DECISIONS
ARE HANDED DOWN
Plan of Hartman
Lines Of Railroad Attorney Curtly
Rejected--Heavy Blows TO
State Power Over Roads

Washing ton, January 6.-The SUI
reme court of the United States today
id down the far reaching principle
rat corners of interstate commod-
ies such as articles of clothing and
bod are in violation of the Sherman
hti-trust law and held that, as far
the Sherman law was concerned, the
ldictment in the New York federal
burt of James Patten, Eugene G.
Gales, Frank Fl. Hayne and William
Brown for "conspiring TO run an
legged cotton corner was valid. The
ase against them was sent back for
.ial or other proceedings.
Justice Van Devanter announced the
pinion OF the court. Justice Lurton
elivered a dissenting opinion that
hlef Justice White and Justice Holmes
burt held that the circuit court for
outhern New York had decided that
he Indictment charged a withhold
ag' of the cotton from the market, a
ecessary element of corner as adj
bitted by the government. The minor
Ey held that the circuit court that
|ound the Indictment did not so charge
nd for that reason the indictment was
.aulty. According to all the justices
he correctness of the holding of the
3ircuit court as to the indictment
[harging a withholding" and as to
he sufficiency of the indictment on
Ether technical points has to be ae-
Eepted at this time without question
III the supreme court. The points thus
left undecided today may be made
basis for bringing the case to the
lourt again, If the defendants are con-
kicted.
Will Stop Corners
Solicitor General Bullitt, who pre-
tented the governments side of the
|ase, issued statement after the de-
.ision in which he said at least way
ad been found to stop the running up
,f prices by men who sought to cor
her the market not only of cotton
but wheat. corn, lard and other COM
|hodities
In his opinion. Justice Van Devanter
Eealt at length with the defense that
Inc accused men were not engaged in
Interstate commerce.
..The first section of the act, upon
which the counts are founded said he,
lis not connfied to voluntary restraint,
is where persons engaged in interstate
.rade or commerce agree to suppress
among themselves, but IN
,ludes as well involuntary restraints, as
where persons not so engaged conspire
o compel action by others or to create
pi1
impede or burden the due course of such
rade or commerce or restrict the com
non liberty to engage therein
The Standard Oil case was quoted in
of this doctrine. Government
officials claim this language will ma
Ierally strengthen their fight against
violating the law.
Justice Van Devanter replied to the
argument that running corner stimulated
of Festrains interstate trade, by
aging that this might be true for a
im9 but that the corner was forbidden
" 1the act because it thwarted the usual
of laws of supply and demand.
withdrew the commodity from the nor
nal current of trade, enhanced prices,
md produced practically the same trou-
lies as the suppression of competition.
lie said that the statute did not apply
o corners of purely intrastate trade, not
where the effect upon Interstate trade
was indirect, and added, that as in
he present case the trade was not intra-
,tate and the effect was not indirect.
Would Enhance Prices
"Tt was a conspiracy to run a corner
n the market" said he "The conamod-
ty to be cornered was cotton, a product
If the southern states, largely used AMI
consumed in the northern states. 1t was
subject of interstate trade The cor
Ter was to be conducted on the cotton
exchange in New York city. but by
means which would enable the conspfra-
ors to obtain control of the available
upply and to enhance the price to all
,uyers In every market of the country.
Bearing in mind that such was the
nature or object and scope Of the con-
piracy, we regard it altogether plain
hat by it's necessary operation, II would
lirectly and materially impede and bur-
len the due course of trade and com
nerce among the states and therefore in
lict upon the public the injuries which
he antitrust act is designed to prevent
The court said it made no difference
hat there was no allegation of specific
(Continues on Page Two)