Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-07-03
DECISION FOR
READING ROAD
Government Loses in Dis
solution Suit in U. S.
Court.
CHARGED MONOPOLY
IN COAL BUSINESS
Effort Made to Show That combina-
ton Controlled Sixty Three Per
Cent Of Unnined Coal Deposits-Re.
strieted Output With Result That at
Some Future Time Reading Company
Would Have Absolute Monopoly.

Philadelphia, July S.-The United
States district court today rendered
decision in favor Of the defendant in
the government suit to dissolve the
Reading Company and to separate the
Central New Jersey railroad from the
Reading.
The suit Of the government against
the Reading Company and allied cor
porations is probably the most impor-
tant step the department of justice
has taken in its attack upon what 1t
contends is monopoly in the anthra-
cite coal trade. In 1901 the govern
thracite coal-carrying railroads and
affiliated companies, charging that
general illegal combination existed
among them. This charge was not
sustained by the supreme court bu.
the government won two other mate
rial points in that suit. 1t then decid-
ed to take action against many of the
companies in separate suits. The case
against the Delaware, Lackawanna &
Western Railroad and its allied coal
company and that against the Lehigh
Valley Railroad and the coal company
affiliated with it are now in the fed
eral courts.
Nine Companies Are Named.
The suit against the Reading was
filed here in September, 1918. The de-
PENDANTS are:
The Reading Company, holding
corporation.
The Philadelphia and Reading Rail-
way Company.
The Philadelphia aand Reading Goa
and Iron Company.
The Central Ralraad Company OF
New Jersey.
The Lehigh and Wilkes Barre Coal
Company.
The Lehigh Coal and 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. F'rick, Peter A. B. Wild
ener, Daniel Willard, Henry P. Mexican
and Samuel Dickson, directors Of the
| RedQlnS COMPANY, WIZ hAS u1i SStoh :
| in one or more of the other compa-
MES controlled by the Reading.
To Break Up Alleged Monopoly.
Generally stated the objects of the
suit decided today were to dissolve
what the government declared to be a
combinat ton of competitive producers.
shippers, sellers and carriers of an
! thracite held together, it was alleged,
| in violation Of the federal anti-trust
act through the Reading Company.
which has capitalization of s275,-
600 900; to dissolve an alleged contrib
| utory combination between two OF
such competitive producers, shippers.
sellers and carriers and to restrain GER
tain of the defendants from violating
the commodities clause Of the act to
regulate commerce. which violation the
government contended was one of the
means whereby the domination of the
alleged combination over the anthra :
cite trade was maintained.
It was charged by the government
that the companies named in the sui:
were leagued together SO that they
controlled more than 63 per cent of the
unmined coal deposits; that they were
mining about rs per cent of the an
nual production and their tenants 3
per cent additional, and that the rail-
roads named were transporting about