The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-02-04

iutxtaposition alone by means of a cor
poration, he said in substance, did not
furnish sufficient, intent to. raise the
conduct to the dignity of an attempt TO
monopolize.
Despite today's decision. officials of
the department OF Justice declared the
shoe machinery company would be prose-
cuted for alleged criminal violations or
the Sherman law under the remaining
count of the indictments returned against
the company the validity of which was
sustained by the lower court. That count
which was not before the supreme court
charged in effect that the company was
monopolizing the industry by combina-
ton, by tying the various shoe machines
together, by a destruction of competition
and by acquisition of competitors bus-
ness Officials vigorously maintained that
the decision did not affect the govern
ment's case on this count
The strongest feature of the govern
ment's effort to show an unlawful combi-
nation in restraint of trade, said Solicitor
General Bulitt was the tying clause OF
the agreements in which 1t is alleged the
company sought TO compel shoe manu-
facturers to buy machines from 1t and
none other That question, he declared,
was not considered by the court because
the lower court had interpreted the in
referring solely to the organization of the
United Shoe Machinery company. Attor-
news for the department said the decision
would not affect any other pending anti
trust suits
The action of the court grew out OF
| the Massachusetts supreme court annull-
| ing one or two indictments brought
against the shoe officials. The Massa-
| chusetts court took the position there
nffa, ha a
The government appealed to the SUI
preme court by virtue of the criminal
| appeals act of 1901. on the ground that
8! it did cite an olfense. The government
| in the Indictment alleged that Sidney
| w Winslow, Edward p. Hull, George
! w Brown, William Barbour and Elmer
p Howe violated the law, first by or
| ganizing the United Shoe machinery cor
| poration and second by a system of ieas-
| ing their. machines. whereby patrons
| were compelled TO compromise not to us5
any machine made by the independents
| and to use only that made by the alleged
| combine The charge was made that the
| shoe machinery corporation took over
| the business of the Consolidated and
| MacKay Lasting Machine company
| manufacturing 60 per cent of all lasting
| machines: the MacKay Shoe Machinery
company. manufacturing 10 per cent oil
/ all neel1HB iildCntllto anu o' pei NOht VI
all metallic fastening machines, and the
| Goodyear Machinery company, manufac-
turing so per cent of all the welt sew
ing and out sole stitching machines.
The government claimed this put about
50 per cent of the business of manufac-
turing shoe machinery into one concern
and that being undue proportion OF
the trade, was a violator of the law
1t did not claim that there had beer
unfair competition as in the Standar1
OIL or tobacco cases
Could Not Review Action
The shoe machinery officials declared
the supreme court could not review this
action of the Massachusetts courts be-
cause the criminal appeals act had beer
repealed by not being included in this
judicial code of 1872 and also claimed
that the organization of the corporation
was a normal trade development The
further urged that the groups consoli
dated into the corporation were non-com
peting, and that the leasing system was
justified by the patent laws. Justice
Holmes announcing the unanimous de
cision of the court, said that the lowe
court regarded the indictment as merely
referring to the organization of the COM
| pany, not TO the tying clause leases
That being the case he added the SUI
! Ditlnt touit uitoA h'ttPe tito NitioN'
question He said this reduced the case
| to a narrow compass and pointed out
| the several groups combined in the or
| ganizing of the United Shoe Machinery
| company were non-competitive. The
| smallest possible competition was sought
| il was averred. The two indictments
We're directed against the officials. The
case decided involved only one of the
| indictments
Effort for Efficiency
"On the face of il the combination .
| said Justice Holmes, was simply ian
| effort for greater efficiency. The bust
| ness of the several groups that com
bined as ii existed before the combina-
tion is assumed to have been legal. 1t
| is hard 10 see why the collective busi-
| ness should he any worse than its com
| ponents parts. We can no greater
| objection to corporation making "a
per cent of three non-competing groups