The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1915-07-03
United States District Court
in Philadelphia Holds for
DEPENDENT in Action
Against Reading Company.
JOLT TO THE
DEPARTMENTS CAUSE
Action Was Regarded as Most
Important Of All Federal
Proceedings Against An
thracite Trust.

~ LNNNANM AL'NN AN|M"NM NV
Philndelphia, July 6.-ihe United
States district court to-day rendered "a
decision IN favor 81 the defendant In
the government suit 60 dissolve the
Reading company and 10 separate
the New Jerscy Ceatral 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 It's attack upon what u
contends Is q monopoly In the anthra-
cite coal trade. In 1897 the govern
ment filed a suit against all the an
thracite coal carrying railroads aud
affiliated coal companies. charging
that "A general Illegal combination eg.
istgd among them. This charge was
not sustained By the supreme court
but the government won two other
material points In that suit. IL then
decided go take action against many
of tho companies In separate suits.
The case against the Delaware. Lack
uWanna and Western railroad and it's
allied coal company and that against
the Lehigh valley railroad ana the
'Ndi NNfuihNN hNAAlhh'N Win II wv
now in the federal courts.
The suit against tho Reading was
filed here In September. 1913. The
defendants are:
The Reading company, a holding
corporation.
The Philadelphia and Reading Rail-
way company.
The Philadelphia and Reading Coal
ana Iron company.
The Central Railroad company OF
New Jersey.
The Lehigh and wnkes-Barre Coal
company. Ia
The Lehigh Coal and Navigation
company. AZ
wilmington and Northern Railroad
company.
lehigh and Hudson river Railway
company.
Lchish ana New England Railroad
company.
George +. Baker. Edward T. Stotes-
hurry, Henry G. Prick, peter a. Il. Wild
cner. Daniel willard. Henry p. hc-
Kean and Samuel Dickson. directors
of the Reading company who are also
directors in one or more of the other
companies controlled 10y the Read
Ing.
Generally stated. the objects Of tho
suit decided today were TO dissolve
what the government declared To be
q combination Of competitive produc-
ers. shippers. sellers ana carriers of
anthracite held t%0gether. IL was alleg.
ed. In violation of the federal anti
trust act through the Reading com
pany. which has a capitalization o'
| &21I. gUO. 600: TO dissolve an alleged
coutrihutory combination between
two OF such competitive producers
! shippers. sellers n carriers and q
RESTRAIN certain Of the defendant.
from violating the commodities claus
81 the act 60 regulate commerce
which violation the government con
tended was one Of the means where
10y the domination Of the alleged com
binatlon over the anthracite trad.
was maintained.
u was charged by the governmcn
that The companies named In the sui
were lcaeucd together go that the
controlled more than 90 per cent @
tho unmined coal deposits: that thu
were mining about &c per cent 81 IN
annual production and their tenant
per cent additional. and that IN
railroads named were t%ransportiu
about 33 per cent Of the total produc
tion. The government further main