The Sentinel=record., 1914-04-08
HAS DIRECT BEARING ON INTER. LOCKING DlREcToRATEs AND
 MERCER STOCKS.
DUES NOT VIOLATE LAW
Delaware, lackawanna and Western Railways and Coal Company Not In Violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Statutes, Says Court.

Trenton, N. J.. April 7-The United states court filed an opinion here to. day dismissing the suit of the United States against the Delaware, Lacka- wanna and Western Railroad Com pany and the Delaware. I.ackawanna and Western Coal Company for al. leged Violation of the commodities clause and the Sherman anti-trast law. The court holds that there isr no United States law or decision pro hibiting the same set of individuals holding stock in two distinct corpo- rations even though they may be en- gagged in kindred business.
 The governments contention in the suit was that the Delaware, I.acka-
 wanna and Western Railroad Com pany and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Coal Company were virtually one corporation and that
 they were violating the law for the reason that the Delaware, Lacka- wanna and Wesetrn Railroad Con-
 pany was admittedly engaged in
 transporting over It's lines a large quantity of coal shipped by the Della ware, Lackawanna and Western Coal | Company
 It was admitted at the hearing that stock of the coal company was largely, if not entirely, owned by
 stockholders of the railroad but it
 was contended on the part of the de- fendants that there was a bonafide l distinction between the two com panies while it was contended on the part of the government that the
 maintaining of the two companies with the stock of the coal company
 was a subterfuge to evade liability
 under the statute prohibiting coal company from carrying goods manu- factured, mined or produced by itself.
 The opinion filed goes extensively into former decisions in the United, States supreme court in which the defendant companies with other com panies were involved. It is pointed out that after these decisions, which were adverse to the defendants, the Delaware, Latkawanna and Western railroad which at the time owned the stocks of the coal company, placed the stocks, of the coal com pany on the N Narket, giving prefer ence in the sale of such stocks to the stockholders of the railroad com pany. This method of the railroad company in divesting itself of the stock of the coal company is held in today's opinion to have been sub stantial compliance with the dec- sions in the former cases. Today's decision goes on to say:
 "No act of congress, or judicial de, cision, has declared it to be illegal for any individual citizen to invest his money in two enterprises merely because the two enterprises may be closely connected"
 The decision also states that the facts before the court are that the two companies are distinct and that the railroad company owns mines
 and sells coal to the company, has no interest in that coal after it is mined, except the interest that it has in the business of transportation.
 Dealing with the alleged violation | of the Sherman antitrust law, todayS | opinion says there was a formal 1 charge against both defendants under said antitrust act, but that the oral argument left the court under the | impression that these charges were
 not much insisted on by the govern ment.
 The courts understanding was that what was desired was a decision of the alleged violation of the coms
 modities law upon which today's dis | missal is based.
 | The opinion, in conclusion says l that a decree may be entered dis missing the bill. but that the dis missal will be without prejudice to
 the governments right to begin a 1 second suit, if the situation changes | in the future and affords the govern
 ment grounds to assert that the af- | fairs of two corporations have be-