New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1915-07-03
READING ROAD Wins
GOVERNMENT SUIT
U, S. District Court Of Philadel-
phia Gives Decision for Defendant

rsc- 3 4 ~ 49, sFSN 8
Philadelphia, July s.-The United
srates district court today rendered a
decision in favor of the defendant in
the government suit ito dissolve the
Reading company ans to separate Inc
New Jersey Central railroad from the
Reading.
The suit of the government against
The Reading company and allied cor
norations is probably the most inn
Eortart step the department Of
Justice has taken in its attack upon
what it contends is monopoly in the
anthracite coal trade. In 1907 the
9overnment filed a suit against all the
anthracite coal CARRYING railroads and
INFLATED coal com panies charging that
general illegal combination existed
raong them. This charge was not sus-
tanned by the supreme court but the
government won two osner material
t,nir,ts in that suit. II then decided to
take action against many Of the COM
panies In separate suits. The case
against the Delaware Lackawanna
and Western railroad anG its allied
Coal company and that against the
Lehigh Valley railroad End the coal
company affiliated with it are now in
the federal courts.
The suit against the Reading was
/ fled here in September. 1913. The
defendants are
The Reading company. holding
corporation. s.
- The Philadelphia and Rearing Rail
way company.
The Philadelphia and Reading Rail-
and Iron company.
The Central Railroad OF New Jersey.
The Lehigh and Wilkes-Barre Coal
company.
The Lehigh Coal ana Navigation
Company.
Wilmington and Northern Railroad
company.
" Lehigh and Hudson River Railway
Company.
Lehigh and New England Railroad
company.
George F. Baker, Edward T. stotes-
bury, Henry c.. Frick, Peter A. B.
widener. Daniel Willard Henry p
Mexican and Samuel Dickson direc-
fters of the Reading company. who are
also directors in one or more OF the.
other companies controlled by the
Reading.
Objects OF SUIT.
Generally stated the objects OF the
suit decided today were to dissolve
what the government declared to be a
examination of competitive producers.
shippers, sellers and carriers of ar
thracite held together, it was alleged,
iii violation OF the federal antitrust
act through the Reading company,
: which has capitalization of $275, 000,-
GOO to dissolve an alleged contribu-
: TRY combination between two of such
competitive producers. shippers, sell
lers and carriers and to restrain GER
: tain OF the defendants from violating
the commodities clause of the act to
Regulate commerce., wnIcn violation
the government contended was one Of
the means whereby the domination Of
the alleged combination over the an
thracite trade WAS maintained
It was charged by the government
that the companies named in the suit
= were leagued together SC. that they
controlled more than SO per cent. OF
the unHined coal deposits: that they
were mining about 26 percent Of the
annual production and their tenants
percent. additional. and that the
railroads named were transporting
about 30 per cent. OF the total pro-
duetion. The government further
maintained that according to the
sgenerally accepted calculations of
geologists and mining engineers" the
coal areas controlled by the alleged
combination would outIast by many
years those of any competitors. In
time, therefore" the Government de-
clared in the suit, this com bination if
not dissolved would own or control
every ton of commercially available
anthracite known to exist
: Fought To Break Up Combine.
The government sought to break up
the alleged com bination IN the follow
ing manner
That the Reading Company.
Reading Coal and iron Compans
Reading Railway Company and tho
directors Of these companies be ad-
ludged an illegal combination under
the Sherman antitrust act.ss
Dispose Controlling Interest.
That the Reading Company dis
pose of its controlling interest in the
Reading Coal and Iron Co., and the
Reading Railway Co
8 That the Reading Company dis
pose OF its controlling interest in the
Jersey Central Railroad because the
Government alleged it was competi-
tive road and its acquisition a viola
ton OF law.
That the Reading Coal and Iron
Company be enjnined from purchase
ING the coal output from so-called in
dependent concerns because such pur-