The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1914-04-08
IMPORTANT
DECISION
L. :. COURT DISMISSES SUIT
OF GOVERNMENT VS..
LACkAWANNA.
Suit Was 10 Separate Railroad
From Coal Co.-Will Appeal
10 Supreme Court.

TRENTON. y. J.. April :. - The
nttsd States court filed an opinion
here to-day dismissing the suit of the
United states government against
the Delaware. Lackawanna & Nest.
ern railroad and the Delaware. Iacka.
wanna a Western Coal company Tor
allesed violation OF the commoditics
clause and the sherman antitrust
law. The court holds that there Is
no United states law or decision pro-
hlpitlng the same set of individuals
holding stock in two distinct corpora
tlon, even though they may be en-
gaecd in kindred business.
me decision was handed down here
ny Judges Gray. Burlington and Me
lrrherson. OF the third judicial district.
ne action was brought In the federal
court here. but through a certificate
OF expedition filed by Attorney Gen
eral McReynolds. was heard bv tho
Judges OF the court OF appeals al Phil
0delphia in January.
The case Is considered OF the high.
est Importance by the government.
as n Is one OF the steps planned nv
the department OF justice in its efforts
20 break up what IL alleges to be "A
monopoly OF the anthracite coal trade.
ihe case which was brought under
both the sherman antitrust law and
the commodities clause OF the Hep
buIn railroad law. in all probability
viii 20 direct TO the supreme court
OF the United States.
Similar Suit Instituted.
\ somewhat similar suit was re.
StntiN instituted against the Lahieh
valley railroad and its subsidiaries
IN the federal court in New York and
ahotner government action against
Ihe Reading TO separate IL from the
Jersey Central railroad and other in
terests rs IN the United States court
in Philadelphia
To-day's decision IS the second that
this court has handed down in a com.
mouiues clause case. The first case
involved all the anthracite roads and
reached the supreme court. which de-
cided that the commodities clanse
was constitutional. but that a railroad
Inlbni own stock In bona fide cor
pofation which owns the commoditv
the railroad is Transporting.
Inc government attacked this ar
Iaihseinsnt as mere lawyers de-
wee, cloaking old facts under new
hctlon. that II was a mere sinh
terfuge and fraud upon the law and
lne public and that each cornora
ton is In fast the same group or
Douy OF actual persons working TO
rn, me same END under different names"
oday's decision goes on to say.
NO act of congress. or judicial do
clslon, mas declared IL TO be Illegal
Tor and individual citizen TO invest
ms money in two enterprises merely
because the two enterprises may be
closely connected"
The decision also goes m 20 sav
that the facts before the court are 10
the effect that the two companies are
entirely distinct and that the railroad
company. which owns mines and sells
coal TO the coal company, has no in
terest In that coal after II Is mined
except the interest that IL has in the
business of Transporting the same.
when II is supplied to IL for trans
portation.
Other Phases Of Case.
Dealing with other phases OF the
case, alleged violation of the anti
trust act, to-days opinion SAYS there
Was a formal charge against both do.
PENDANTS under the antitrust act. but
that the oral argument left the court
under the impression that these
charges were not such insisted on
derstanding was that what was de-
sired was a decision on the alleged
violation OF the commodities clause
upon which tO-day's dismissal Is
Eased, and for this reason the court
deems u needless TO discuss the evi-
dence bearing upon the charge Of re-
straining or monopoliZing commerce.
and adds. IF We are mistaken in this
supposition. the error can easily be
corrected "
lhe opinion winds up by saying
that a decree may be entered dis
missing the bin but that the dismis-
sal VIII be without prejudice TO the
governments right 20 begin "a sec
ond proceeding. if the situation
changes in the future and affords the
government grounds TO assert that the
affairs Of two corporations have be-
come unlawfully identified
Immediate Appeal
WASHiNGTON. ID. C.. ApriI T.
steps viii be- taken immediately bv
the Department Of Justice 20 appeal TO
the supreme Court from the decision