The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1915-08-25
CALLED A MONOPOLY.
Eastern Kodak Company Violated Sher-
man Antitrust Law.

/ Buffalo, N. Y, Aug. l25.- The Eastma
| Kodak company of Rochester is me
nopoly in restraint of trade in violatio
of the Sherman antitrust law, accord
ing to decision handed down here lat
| yesterday by Judge John b. Hazel 0
the United States district court. Tn
decision grants the defendant compan.
an opportunity to present plan 80
the abrogation of the illegal monopoly
on the first day of the November term
Judge Hazel, in his opinion, stated
that while it appeared that no irremedi
able hardship would result from a sep
aration of the present business into two
or more separate companies, it was not
at this time intended to indicate either
dissolution, division or reorganizat
ton.
1t no doubt is possible, he said, that
an adequate measure of relief might re-
suit from enjoining the unfair practices
of the terms of sale agreements, and
from separation Of the business but
the defendants should have an oppor-
tunity to present to the court on the
first day of the 1915 November term a
plan for the abrogation of the illegal
monopoly unduly and unreasonably re-
straining interstate trade and commerce,
or if an appeal from this interlocutory
decree is taken to the supreme court,
and this decision is affirmed, such plan Is
to be presented within 80 days from the
filings Of the mandate.
I The bill was filed June o, 1913, against
the Eastman Kodak company Of New
Jersey, Eastman Kodak company of
New York, George Eastman, Henry A,
Strong, Walter s. Hubbell and Frank
S. Noble, all Of Rochester. The testi-
rnony was taken before Judge Hazel
both here and in Rochester and COM
prised upwards of 5000 printed pages of
testimony and three volumes of printed
exhibits. 1t was finally submitted May
Is, 1915.
The bill alleged substantially that
from 1902 to 1906 the Eastman company
of New York Intentionally monopolized
the business OF manufacturing and sell
ing of cameras. plates, Photographic pa
per and film in the United States by ac'
curing control of 20 competiting con-
Germs which were afterwards dissolved,
the plants dismantled and their business
removed to Rochester.
That the Eastman Kodak company or
New Jersey acquired many stock houses
engaged in different states in selling
Photographic supplies manufactured by |
the defendants and their competitors;
That the defendants with the inten-
ton Of monopolizug the importation ac-
auired the exclusive right TO sell in the
United States and Canada raw paper
stock from European paper mills--a
in the manufacture of photo
graphic paper;
That from 1899 to 1908 all Eastman
products were sold by dealers under re-
striction and with discounts which sti-
fed competition In 1908 these discounts
we're discontinued and subsequently So
called terms OF sale were adopted limit
ing dealers to the handling exclusively
Of Eastman products under penalty of
revocation Of the right TO deal in any
81 the Eastman commodities.
BY the acquisition Of properties and
enforcement OF the terms OF sale II was 4
alleged the defendants acquired the larg-
st percentage of trade, uulawfully re-
trained such trade and obtained an IL J
egal monopoly. Ii
The defendants in their answer de-
lied restraining trade or competition or /,
,ngaging in a monopoly and claimed
heir status was a result of the creation !
nd development within their plants OF !
PRODUCTS Of a superior quality and OF !
he manufacture Of a camera in which
hey were the conceded pioneers.
The opinion reviewed in detail the ac-
uisition of the control of ray paper and I
( competing companies and stated
hat il was difficult 10 avoid the con
fusion that these acts were for the :
urpose Of suppressing competition and
! furtherance of an intention to form y
monopoly. In substantiation of this
was pointed out that in nearly every =
lstance the conveyance contained re-
trictive covenants prohibiting the Of
cers OF the acquired concerns from re- !
1tering the business for periods rang y
q from five 70 20 years, thus serving, n
said in the tobacco case, "as perpetual
arriers 10 the entry OF others" Ii
Monopolies thus formed, the opinion pl
are bound 10 become burden u
,me and menacing 20 industrial well e
re and are entirely az variance with "
holesome business conditions. d
Judge Hazel dismissed the govern
ent's claim that contracts for the man. m
acture Of motion picture films entered "
70 between three defendants and the m
otion Picture Patents company were
olstions OF the statute. re-