New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-14
Government Evidence Pur-
ports to Show Illegal
Restraint of Trade.
"HOLDING COMPANY"
FOR COMBINING ROADS
Documents and Letters SO lndi'
eating Are introduced at
Local Hearing.

Documentary evidence and letters tend
ing 10 show that the Philadelphia q
Reading Railroad sought to create mo-
nopoly in the mining and shipment OF coal
took M the greater part Of Yesterday
hearing in the suit brought by inc COY
eminent TO break NJ the intimate relations
between that railroad. the Contra RAN
road of New Jersey and coal and coal
lands companies.
The Philadelphia & Reading Railroad
through its ownership Of the stock IN these
companies. controls about % per cent OF
the coal mined in Pennsylvania, and the
government attorneys presented reports
and documents dating as far back as lSl
10 prove their contention that monopoly
exists.
The reports showed the prosecution
commended. the intimate connections be-
tween the defendant companies, when
enab led them to control the mining and
transportation in 90 per cent OF the coal
lands Of the state or Pennsylvania. The
governments representatives. by their evil
dcncc. sought 10 show that The Phila-
delphia & Reading was the holding
toned I'm the suit
Some Of the reports stated that the
combination of corporations owned more
than 1cS square miles OF coal lands in the
Schuylkll Valley alone.
The entire history or the Reading Rail
way was gone over thoroughly, and the
manner in which its subsidiary corpora
o
pany's own reports. According 10 the
evidence, the Philadelphia & Reading 1e-
cided TO embark i'm the coal business m
1871. when the railroad was much ham
pered by the strikes OF the coal miners
TO stop the strikes and insure peace and
prosperity the railroad borrowed go
~. oo0 and purchased the coal lands, or
the greater part Of them, that II IS now
accused Of controlling. contrary 10 the
Sherman antitrust law.
Jackson e. Reynolds. attorney Tor the
Reading. objected to the enterln7 OF the
testimony on the ground that it was Inn
material and irrelevant In that most or
the reports were written i'm the years be-
fore 1890 when the Sherman antitrust
law went into effect. He also made adj
dtional objections 10 the reading Of the
Reading reports issued prior to 1876, be-
cause. he said. they had no standing
owing TO the fact that the company at
that time had not yet been Incorporated.
Some OF the letters presented were he
tween officials Of the road and were de-
scribed as pointing out the large profits
that would be derived from the freight
charges on the coal
Thurlow Gordon. special Assistant At
torney General. represented the Depait-
meut OF Justice. and Frederic r. COu-
dert and Howard r. Kingsbury. special
Attorneys General. assisted him. The
representatives OF the defendant COM
panies who appeared al the hearing Tes-
terdav were Charles Heebner. Jackson
REYNOLDS and Robert w. De Forest. OF
the Reading Railway Company; William
]. Turner Of the LehSh & New England
Railroad Company; H. s. Drioker, jr. Of
the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Com
pany, and John !. Beatte, Of the Lehgh
& Hudson River Railroad.
The hearing was held at No. Rector
street and will be continued next week.
The attorneys for the government will
report to the federal court in Phladel-
phia MAY p