The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1913-01-09
CORNER IS TRUST
HIGH COURT SAYS
Patten and Others Lose Fight to
Quash Indictment.
CASE IS SENT TO TRIAL
Lower Tribunals Ruling Is Set Aside
by Decision Of Supreme Justices
in 100000 Conspiracy
Action.

Washington, Jan. THE days of
corners such as the famous Hutch
inson and Letter corners in wheat,
James A. Patterns corners in wheat
and cotton, and Dan" Sully's corner
in cotton--were brought to an end
when the Supreme court held that the
men who attempt them in the future
may be criminally prosecuted under
the Sherman antitrust law.
The courts opinion was handed
down in the so-called Patten cotton
corner" case, in which James A. Pat
ten. Eugene G. Scales, Frank b. Hayne,
Col Robert NJ. Thompson, Sydney J.
Hartman, Morris Rothschild, l.. A.
Kittle and William F, Brown were in
dicted for manipulating a corner in
cotton in 1910.
Profits Were 100000.
The profits realized in the Patten
cotton corner were given as 100000
600.
The decision of the Supreme court
settles the important question that
corner" of any commodity is re-
straint of interstate commerce and
may be violation of the Sherman an
thrust law. The decision does not
determine the question of guilt of Pat
ten or the other defendants, but sends
the case back to the lower court for
trial on the facts, with the important
principle Of law established that II
corner in cotton is proved the Sher-
man statute Is violated.
Government Appeal Upheld.
The alleged violation of the Sher-
man law was set forth in the indict-
ment in eight different ways in as
many counts, the defendants being
liable for trial on any one. Before the
defendants could be placed on trial
the United States circuit court for
southern New York held insufficient
four counts as not stating an offense.
The government appealed to the Su-
preme court.
Justice Vandeventer in announcing
the opinion said the Supreme court at
this time. under the law, was not au-
thorized to review the lower courts
construction or Interpretation Of the
indictment as such, but only the lower
courts Interpretation of the statute.
Therefore, he added, the court passed
by those points raised by the govern
ment.
In his opinion Justice Vandeventer
said 1T well may be that running a
corner tends for time to stimulate
competition; but this does not prevent
it from being forbidden restraint for
1t also operates to thwart the commod-
ity from the normal current of trade,
to enhance the price artificially, to
hamper users and consumers in salts
lying their needs and to produce prac
tically the same evils as does the sup
preston OF competition
What Constitutes a Corner.
The justice said the government had
conceded in arguing the case that in
order to effect a corner there must be
Withholding" from sale of the cot
ton bought Therefore, he said, the
controversy turned upon whether the
indictment charged a Withholding
AS to that point, the decision Of the
lower court could not be reviewed at
this time, the justice added, although
the point might be reviewed II there
were further proceedings in the case
For the present the decision of the
lower court on this point must be ac-
cepted as correct. he said He then
passed to the holding OF the lower
court that running a corner was not
violation of the law because the re-
straint was too indirect and not volun-
tary.
I'VE hold that the restraint need not
be voluntary, but in the light OF the
Standard Oil case may be involun-
tary."
Justice Nandevanter said that the
injury to the public was the same
whether the effect was voluntary or
involuntary,
Justice Lurton announced dissent,
ing opinion. in which Chief Justice
White and Justice Holmes concurred.
The case will go back to the federal
court of southern New York for trial
or other proceeding