The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1914-03-19
Action Brought by Attorney
General Under Sherman
Law; Monopoly in Coal
Field Alleged.
MANY DEFENDANTS
NAMED IN THE BILL
George F. Baer, President Of
Reading Companies, Co.
defendant in Case, Re-
signs From Lehigh.

NEW YORK, March 1S.-The Lehigh
Valley Railroad company was sued here
today by Attorney General McReynolds
under the Sherman antitrust law as be-
ing the dominant factor In combina ton
alleged to control the output of antlsra-
cite coal from the Pennsylvania fields 1t
touches
More than a dozen other corpora tions
and individuals were named as code
PENDANTS and parties to a conspiracy to
monopoize that trade. Although suit was
brought TO break up an alleged monopoly,
the attorney general charges that the Le-
high road. through the formation OF a coal
sales company two years ago. has es-
capped the supreme court decision under
the commodities clause OF the Interstate
rate act. which forbds the railroad to
transport coal belonging TO a corpora
ton whose stock it owns and whose af-
fairs have been commngled with Its
own.
The further charge was made that the
Lehfgh has violated the provision OF the
Pennsylvania commission prohibiting
common carriers from engaging in mining
or business other than transporta tion,
The usual injunction and decree Of dis
solution were asked.
1t Is understood that the suit Is to be
followed by others against some Of the
roads which enter the Pennsylvan mia an
thraoits field,
Defendants Named.
Among the defendants named were:
Lehigh Valley Coal company. Lehigh
Valley Coal Sales company, Coke &
Brothers company. Inc, Edward T..
Stotesbury. Daniel G. Reid. Charles
Steele, George T. Baker and George r.
Baer,
BY virtue of It's monopoly. the COM
plant declares. the Lehigh has prevent
ed the building Of any new railroad into
the anthracite regions served by 1t, and
has kept the Independent producers un-
der the disadvantage of having to ship
over a railroad also engaged In the coal
business
Furthermore the bill sets forth,
through its alleged monopoly of the sale
OF coal produced along its line. the road
Completely dominates the market at all
railroad. and has the power to fix. has
fixed and does Ak. without the check OF
competition. the prices at which anthra-
cite Is sold at such points"
Enormous Tonnage.
The bill points out that the Lehigh an
nually transports about 1000. 900 gross
tons OF anthracite, OF that total, the
government maintains more than 50 per
cent I'm 1899 was shipped for the ac-
count OF the Lehigh Coal company or af-
hliated companies. The relations be-
tween the railroad and the I.ehigh Coal
company are set forth at length In the
complaint which declares that the latter
has never been ''bona dde' corporation,
but q mere adjunct department or In
strumentality OF the Lehigh railroad"
In statement tonight Edgar II. Boles,
general solicitor OF the Lehigh Valley
Railroad company, denies that the sales
company. by whose existence and activity
the acts alleged by the government are
said TO have been made possible; is In
any way affiliated with OF controlled by
the railroad" although 1t Is conceded as
possible that the railroad and the sales
company may have stockholders In COM
mon.
Dealing with tho railroads ownership
| OF the I.ehigh Valley Coal company and
subsidiaries. Mr.. Boles says that this
| matter had been Investigated by the
| government 'for more than a genera
tion.'' and that e there had been VIC:
| have identified them by this time and
made them clear to the courts,