New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-07-04
The Pennsylvania District
Court Finds No Coal
Combination.
GOVERNMENT WINS
IN ONLY ONE ISSUE
neeision Suggests Divorce of
|. & w. Company from
Jersey Central.

philadelphia, July S.-Ihe Ohl'eu
Gates Cour: for the eastern district OF
p.,rsvlvania decided to-day that the
r,.5;ng group Of corporations, the
80 Railroad Company Of New Jer-
- The Lehigh Coal and Navigation
r,-,snv and subsidiary and allied
..,,3snies arc not leagued together in
n,iawfri combination and therefore
}, not unduly restrain commerce in
=. r~o6uction, sale or transportation
- anthracite coal.
The Federal government, which
,,,urht the suit nearly two years ago
"a dismember the alleged combination
-, eerarate units and to nullify GER
49,. 80; agreements and leases, wins a
~. In that the court suggested tnat
heTehieh and Wllkesbarre Coal Com
rsnv be divorced from the Jersey. Cen
~ Railroad. As the subject OF TINS
,srticular separation was not argued
Z the trial the court suggested u Tor
rorsideration when the scope OF the
f.rres comes 10 be determined. Inc
Sealing ownership Of III, Jersey Cen
,raI Railroad is not disturbed
No Breach of Hepburn Act.
TIE court decided that there was no
v;olstion Of the commodities clause OF
de He7burn railroad act. which pro-
Sibits a railroad from transporting any
rormodlty in which it has an interest
IRE suit is one Of the most important
he government has brought TO break
m what i declares 10 be an Illegal
Combination IN the anthracite coal
Sns,ress. Three years ago the tinted
Ststes Supreme Court decided there
was no general combination among inc
anthracite coal carriers and producing
companies in violation of the ANTITRUST
law. ...o.rod
,tst . number Of smaller combinations
waking together constituted a general
,ombinstion. While dismlsslng the
complaint regarding the general com
Ntation, the Supreme Court took no
action on the alleged smaller comolna-
,jons This left the government Tree
70 proceed against the smaller com
bines. and of these the ReadlnC' the
government alleged, was the largeSI
and virtually dominated the hard coaI
trade.
No Bad Faith Shown.
Dec,di,, that on the evidence the
Reading Railway and the Reading Coal
and Iron Company are distinct ana sep
arate corporations end did not NloIatee
the commodities clause, the OPINION OF
the court further said:
Where a corporation is mere
screen for an individual, or where one
corporation performs similar once
Tor another. the device has not oeen
2Tcwor 20 stand i'm the way OF justice
and fair dealing. But we may SSa1eiy
saw that in practically all such IN
stances the element Of fraud or bad
faith s 20 be found, and u Is certainly
rare 10 ina situation where such an
clement is secure from successful at
tack. The cases already decided by the
Surre07o Court make the distinction be-
tween GOOD faith and bad faith.
That the law has been consciously
and deliberately violated we do not be-
Ieve and decline 20 find. But as the
commodities clause does not make the
esrrier's state of mind an essential
clement IN the offence, the question IS
.nl oren whether the Reading Rail-
wav and the Coal and Iron company
whatever their intention may have
been. have in fact so conducted their
Affairs as o. violate the law.
No Unfair Methods.
The court then took up the Reading
group and held that no evidence had
been offered that large producers had
been injured and no effort was made
10 prove that the prices Of coal had
been excessive. As 10 the smaller pro
oucers. several charges Of unfair con-
Duct were examined and one or two
we're sustained, but In general the
court said:
"Except as stated, no discrimination
OF oppression against other producers
and sellers has been proved agalns'
the thrce Reading companies. me
coal company meets competition IN al!
The markets il reaches. Neither IS
there any proof that the price OF coal
has been extort.onate or unrcasonat Ie'
The rates Of freight have remained tor
years substantially as they no" are
and the Interstate Commerce Commls-
sion has not interfered with these
rates Neither does the evidence sup
port the charge Of the bill, that the
TRANSPORTATION Of anthracite by rail-
road AZ the rates now and for a long
time past In force has been enormous
y profitable; and this charge IS not
pressed in the governments briel.
And the mining OF coal from 1898 10
1913 has resulted in a profit 10 ne
coal and iron company Of no more than
l8i2 cents per ton, while IT'S mlscel-
laneous receipts increase It's income
10 about twenty cents
The principal charges are thus C
elsred not to be sustained by the
proof
Combination Objectionable.
The court then considers the Cen
trail Railroad Of New Jersey as the
owner Of nearly all the capital stock
Of the Wilkesbarre Coal Company, a
competitor in the mining OF coal. Inc
court holds that as they are compeu'
tors, the union of control Is obJecu9n-
. able. but as the interchange OF other
traffic between the Reading Railway
and the Central Railroad Of New Jer-
sey is not complained OF, and is eVl-
IDENTIFY Of very great value TO both sys-
tens, the court suggests that the Cd
Jet Of the government Will be at
tanned IL the Wilkesbarre Coal Co.A-
psny should be divorced from the Cen
trail Railroad and commends this SUP
ltet 10 counsel for further considera
TO be