The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-02-04
MERE COMBINING
NO LAW VIOLATION
Intent Is Held Necessary to
to Prove Charge OF
Monopoly.
SUPREME COURT OPINION
Point Is Decided for First Time
in Case of "Shoe Ma
chinery Trust"
SUPREME COURT OPINION

Washington, February 3.-For the
first time the Supreme Court or the
United States to-day held in effect, in
the shoe machinery trust case, that
the sherman antitrust law does not
forbid the mere combining OF non
competitors in an Industry. Sollcltor-
General Bullitt, for the government
had contended that IL the combination
brought into one hand the undue pro
portion OF the trade, II was iorpiooeh
BY the antitrust law.
THE disintegration aimed at by the
statute does not extend 10 reducing
al manufacture to isolated units OF the
Iozyest degree" declared Justice Holmes
in announcing the unanimous ueclsloi
of the court that the mere organiza-
ton of the United Shoe Machinery
company. by the heads OF several nom
competing groups OF shoe manufactur-
ers. had not been a violation OF the
law. 49,. 4.
The Justice continued to say that IL
ia as lawful for one corporation 10
make every part of the steam en-
cine and to put the machine together
es IL would be for one 20 make the
boilers and another TO make the
wheels.
In explanation of this concise state
ment of law, the Justice referred TO
decision and the older Swift < COM
many decision, in which IL was heid
That an Intent" is necessary as an
element OF attempting TO monopoiize
The bringing Of noncompetins prahches
of a trade into juxtaposition aiohe ny
means Of a corporation, he SAID In SUD
stance. did not furnish sufficient IN
tent to raise the conduct to the uis-
nttv of an attempt to monopoiize-
VIII Continue Prosecution.
Desnite to-day's decision, officials OF
the Denartment of Justice declared the
shoe Machinery Company would De
prosecuted for alleged criminal vio-
iation of the Sherman law under the
one remaining count of the indictments
returned against the company. the VAL
idity of which was sustained by me
lower court That count. which was
not before the Supreme Court. charg-
ed in effect that the company was
monopolizing the industry by comol-
nation by tying the various snoe ma
chimes together. by destruction or com
petition and by acquisition OF compet-
tors. business Officials vigorously
maintained that the decision did not
AFFECT the governments case on this
count.
The strongest feature. Of the gov
ernment's effort to show an unlawfuI
combination in restraint or trade salo
Solicitor Bullitt, was the ty-
ing" clause of the agreements by which
n ia alleged the company sought TO
compel shoe manufacturers to buy ma
chimes from it and none other.
That question, he declared, was not
considerd by the court because the
lower court had interpreted the IN
dictments involved in to-day's decision
as referring solely to the organization
Of the United Shoe Machinery Com
pany. Attorneys of the department
said the decision would not affect any
other pending antitrust suits
Merits of Case Not Affected.
Boston, February 3.-United States
District Attorney Asa P. French, VINO
has charge of the governments case
against the United Shoe Machinery
Company. said tonight that to-day's
adverse decision of the United States
Supreme Court, which sustained Fed
eral District Judge Putnam, of Boston,
In throwing out two OF the Ave counts
in the two indictments against the
company. did not affect the merits OF
the controversy Mr. French said:
ssThe decision does not in any way
affect the merits of the controversy or
throw any light upon the final determ-
ination either of the indictment which
is still pending, or the proceeding in
equity. which is awaiting the action
Of Congress upon the issue Of the pub
licfty of the hearings before the special
examiner
The question which has just been
decided by the Supreme Court was
merely of criminal pleading The
great and important issue between the
people OF the United MATES and
United Shoe Machinery Company Is
whether or not the latter is a mon
opoly in violation OF the Sherman act
and this depends largely. II not wnoily
upon the view which the courts
ultimately take regarding the patent
question involved. Upon these matters
the court expressly declines to pass
apparently for the reason that they
were not presented by the record. and
saws in fact il must accept without
question the indictment as merely Ce-
ferring 10 the organization OF the
company, not to &be tying clause leases
Incidentally. the court has sus-
tanned the government in a very i'm
portant general contention, which Is
L. - ~