Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-06-03
ARElEClL.
- tx
Was. Opinion olsen.
HOar Relative to
Pool Agreements I|!ll d. filihe
p. PIliess Between q! Cos,
= l-xs - 4 - sfs
Defence Ell! Of U. S. ,sIlgI Coz.
Offers Evidence at Hearing.


New York, June 2.-Evidence that
the late Senator George. II. Hoar of
Massachusetts, who framed the Sher-
man antitrust law, wrote an opinion
one year after its enactment was held
that steel manufacturers who entered
pool agreements 10 fix prices, regu-
bate output and divide profits could not
be convicted under the law, came to
iIsht, today, at the hearing of the gov
eminent dissolution suit against the
United States Steel Corporation.
The opinion written in 1891 for the
Wire manufacturers. who proposed to
torn sucni pool, was put in evidence
by attorneys for the corporation in
connection with testimony of Judge
Gilbert Fl Gary chairman of the cor
poration to the effect that in the early
days of the steel industry it was sup
posed by steel manufacturers and law
Iyers that pools were legal. Three
years ago pools of wire manufacturers
We're broken up by the government
under the law and their members in
|dicted and fined.
The opinion. Judge Gary said. today,
came from the files of Washburn.
Moene & Co. of Worcester, Mass, one
of the. concerns which participated In
lone of the wire pools of the early Dos
and. for whom. he said, Senator Hoar
[acted as attorney. The witness said
he had obtained it from the company
in 1897 when he was connected with a
proposition to consolidate some of the
wire concerns. He described the doc
lument, as an opinion which Showed
1.-THE wire companies that they could
enter into combination to fix prices
without violating the Sherman law
I think the contract above proposed
is reasonable, wrote Senator Hoar in
reference to the proposed pool, land
woulo be so held by the court of the
United States. . The opinion
OF the courts, like the opinion of the
rest of the community may vary in
different generations as to what is
reasonable. But the question Of rca-
sonableness will be a Squestion of law
for the courts to be determined upon
all the facts and in the light OF expe-
rIence, the business habits and the pub
lie opinion of the present time. This
being my opinion. l think the parties
10 the agreement proposed above
would not likely to be convicted of an
offence under the statute of last year.
II am further asked whether it is
| likely that prosecution will be insti-
tuted against them This is not 2 ques-
! ton OF law. The gentlemen who are
! concerned in this business can judge
| as well as I can of the probability in
this record. 1t is probable that at
some time proceedings viii be institute
/ ed which will test this question as
other similar questions will arise un-
der the statute. Whether this bust
i ness would be likely to be selected as
the object of proceedings for such a
! proceeding would depend npon the
feelings of their customers or possible
their business rivals ~
| ~ cannot see any distinction In prin-
eiple between contract of working men
not to work for less than a stipulated
4 sum as wages and contract of em-
ployers not TO sell their product for less
/ than a stipulated sum. Both of these
i being intended for their legitimate pro-
lection and not accompanied with any
/ stipulation for unlawful oppressive or
fraudulent methods, seem to me to be
lawful within the policy of the law as
II now exists and not to be in restraint
of trade but in advancement thereof"
/ .'rhey all believed" testified Judge
!, Gary, that senator IIpar's opinion
| could be relied upon.'
The witness admitted. when asked to
state his own connection with pools. that
some years before the formation of the
| corporation he had signed in behalf or
| the Illinois Steel Co.. an agreement with
Andrew Carnegie to divide their rail bus
| mess on a 50 per cent. basis, an arrange
ment In which. he said, other rail manu-
| facturers later participated.