New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-22
GOVERNMENT WINS
COAL TRUST SUIT

railroad and prevented the coal COM
pany from buying from any other
source. In this provision the railroad
had clearly gone beyond what was nee
essary to insure the taking of its own
coal, and, in effect, prevented the coal
company from becoming a competitor
Of the railroad In purchasing coal from
other mines along the line. The court
pointed out that the railroad purchased
100000 tons Of coal annually from
other producers.
Justice Lamar said il was even more
significant that the railroad company
required the coal company to sell to
present railroad customers" at old
prices, even at a loss, and to do moth
ing against the interest of the rail-
road.
"The railroad" said Justice Lamar,
"if it continues in the business Of
mining, must absolutely disassociate
itself from the coal before the trans
portation begins. 1t cannot retain the
title, nor can it sell through an agent.
1t must leave the buyer free. 1t can
not call that agent buyer while so
hampering and restricting such alleged
buyer as to make him a puppet subject
to the control of the railroad company.
Z
of the mines to one buyer or to many
it must not only part with all interest,
direct or indirect, in the property, but
| also with all control over il or over
those to whom the coal is sold at the
mines. 1t must leave the buyer as
free as any other buyer who pays for
what he has bought.
Must Avoid Joint Action.
at should not sell to a corporation
with officers and Offices in common,
for the policy Of the statute (commodi-
ties clause) requires that instead of
being managed by the same officers
they should studiously and in good
faith avoid anything, either in con-
tract or conduct, that remotely savors
of Joint action, joint interest or the
dominance Of one company by the
other.
az the seller wishes, by a lawful
and bona fde contract. whose provi-
sions as to delivery and otherwise are
not in restraint Of trade, 10 sell all
of its coal to one buying company,
! then that one buyer can be bound by
reasonable terms and required to pay
according to the contract. But such
buyer should otherwise be absolutely
free to extend its business to buy
when, where and from it pleases, and
otherwise TO act as an Independent
dealer in active competition with the
railroad company"
To-day's decision was the third
handed down by the Supreme Court re-
versing the judgment Of federal courts
having jurisdiction over the anthracite
coal railroads. In the first case the
decision that the commodities clause
was unconstitutional was reversed, and
in the second holding as to the or
ganization Of coal companies was up
set.
The Supreme Courts reversal Of the
decision in the governments suit
against the Delaware, Lackawanna d
Western Railroad for alleged evasion
Of the commodities clause Of the inter-
state commerce act had little effect on
stock market prices. When the news
was received there was a short period
Of lower prices in all the anthracite
| roads, but no important declines re-
suited from the days trading.
The Lackawanna case was originally
decided in the United States District
Court sitting at Trenton, n. j., on April
| 9, 1914. This court unanimously dis
missed the government suit, which
charged the Delaware Lackawanna &
Western Railroad and the Delaware,
Lackawanna & Western Coal Company
with violation Of the interstate com
merce act and with violation Of the
| Sherman antitrust law. The appeal TO
the United States Supreme Court was
argued last December.
The present decision Is considered of
special importance in view of the anti
court against the Reading and Jersey
Central railroads and allied coal com
panies. There is also pending the ap-
peal of the Lehigh Valley case before
the Supreme Court. Judge Hough in
the local Federal court last December