The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-10-27
Henry K. McHarg and Fred erick F. Brewster With draw From the Board of Directors
MISSOURI FREIGHT
 RATE DECISION IS
 PUT BEFORE JURY
Attorneys for the Defense Handle Case in Skilful Manner-Jury Somewhat Puzzled by Testimony

l New York. October 26.-Henry k. l McHarg and Frederick F. Brewster, | directors of the New York. New Haven and Hartford railroad, now on trial II with nine former directors of the road under the sherman antitrust law, have | resigned from the New Haven director | ate
 | rodays session of the trial. now con cuding it's second week, had adjourned. They will be presented to the New Ha- ven stockholders at their annual meet ing to be held in New Haven tomorrow, | it was learned.
 While no formal statement as to the ' reason for their retirement was obtainable II tonight it was said on behalf of the H New Haven company that their action un- ldoubtedly was due to desire not to em- Nbarrass the present New Haven manage H,ment through their status as alleged vio- |ldators of the law.
 McHarg and Brewster entered the board Altogether May 31, 1907. They figure in the case at a time when the New Haven . Twas taking over steamship lines and troll 1ey properties.
 The spectre of the oft-quoted Missouri freight rate decision, by which the United |lStates supreme court in 1897 first applies I the sherman antitrust law to railroads, arose in the trial of the Il New Haven nailroad directors today, to plague the
 
 minds of the jury.
 The question was whether the decision ||nbsolved the New Haven directors from |llsnowing that they were committing H. RAegal acts prior to that date and there- /|fore, they could not have intended the Econspiracy with which they are charged &-that of monopolizing the traffic of New kEngland-and whether, knowing they had Zbeen committing illegal acts, they then &continued to commit them in spite of the decision.
 Old Minutes Introduced
 The question came up when the gov E4rnment proposed to introduce minutes tof the New Haven board dated May 1, 31s97, in which it was stated that the directors had been reelected together Ito consider what policy should be pur- xSued by this committee and what advice Eshould be given the New York and New flcngland Railroad company in regard to Freight matters in view of the recent de- Irision of the supreme court of the united States in the Trans Missouri Freight as- |socation case.
 Control of the New England road. its chief competitor. had just been acquired by the New Haven. previous testimony Xllad shown, and R. c. Lindabury Of coun- ysel for the defense, inquired upon what -.-- it,fp r. torney Swacker for the government ex- Xplained that it was to show that the /ENew Haven directors knew of the exiu- Fence of this decision but disregarded 1t. Fro this the defendants attorney, passing t j, the court written references 10 the |lecision of the Sherman law, replied that |up to that time the law had never been Xapplied to railroads and that, therefore, |the directors of the New Haven never Lcould have known they were committing fllegal acts.
 D Skilful Defense
 Thomas Thacher, another of the defense followed with a similar argu- Iment, and it was apparent that one or Xthe important points for the defense was Ibejng pressed All the testimony thus Xfar admitted by the court has been on 1.-The theory that it was intended to show "a purpose to conspire and the existence Of the conspiracy.
 No action was taken by the directors in regard to the question. the minutes stated and after they were in the reG- brd Attorney Swacker began the intro |drction of testimony intended to show khat no action having been taken, -~the alleged conspiracy further to monopolize !the transportation traffic of New Eng land was continued
 This included a memorandum written by Charles g. Mellen, then second vice president of the New Haven. in which he Suggested, in respect the relations be- tween the New Haven and the New |England, that neither should be allowed
 ] make rates lower than the other put that their competition should be Fthrough facilities rather than rates"
 Agreement Forced
 Prior testimony today, in the form or
 letters. showed the New Haven in lSy' had virtually acquired all the railroads south of the Boston & Albany and had forced that road into an agreement for Division of traffic in westbound business.
 The masterful power of the late J. Morgan was emphasized as a harmoniz-
 ing factor in the history of trouble be-
 tween the two roads. as presented by the gcvernment's testimony. MT. Morgan khen was a director of both the New Haven and the New York Central. which coatroled the Boston & Albany. The New Haven and the Central had been at odds over the New England traffic Tor two or three years, and MT. Mellen testified today that MT. Morgan thought hat he (Mellen) had foemented the trouble and ought to be tried Mir Mel len said he went to MT. Morgan and ex- plained the situation and as a resuI he kept his job.
 Subsequently, there was meeting
 board Morgan's yacht, the Corsair. a6
 nc result of which the New York Ccu-
 rale and the New Haven came t. au agi cement to work in harmony an gae traffic arrangement between the NeV Haven and the Boston & Albap N4f entered into.
 The mass of technical detail coliaC ef
 n the many letters put into tfa eeord brought from Judge Hunt tod' suR- Eestion that only their salient points he
 cad to the jury. It was no Hi''dn
 human power. he said. to fier ta The
 eftern day after day and eeD tfliu in|