Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-01-08
NEW HAVEN CASE
GOES TO THE JURY
Judge Hunt Instructs Panel that
Conspiracy to Restrain Trade
is Only Issue.
HE EXPLAINS SHERMAN LAW

against william Rockefeller and ten
other former directors Of the New
York, New Haven g. Hartford rail-
road, charged with criminal con-
spiracy under the Sherman law, was
submitted to the jury today.
william Rockefeller was the only
defendant not in court when Judge
Hunt began his remarks to the jury.
The charge against the defendants
being misdemeanor, his presence
was not legally required.
The court, after describing the indict
ment. first instructed the jury that the
case should be considered without regard
10 any testimony that would indicate
ANY attempts 20 influence legislation by
bribery or corrupt means Tho indict-
noent contained no sucn charge. nc said.
Discussing the Sherman act, he said
that It did not prescribe limit TO &C
ouisitions. and that large enterprises may
in a certain sense he permitted TO monop-
ollie commerce. Magnitude Of business
vas not in itself violation Of law.
The criminal act he said. rs In con-
spring TO restrain freedom OF action and
iinduly restricting or snPpressing compe-
tition.''
The first question for the jury to decide.
he said, was whether back in 1890 or
thereabouts there existed conspiracy TO
reonopolise commerce. II tho govern
ment docs not satisfy you that con
spiracy existed 1T that time. then the
whole case OF the government fails"
Judge Hunt explained that the alleged
Conspiracy must have vecn n continuous
one from 1890 into the three-year period
lowered by the statute OF limitations
Intent IL Psychological.
The court held also that the charge
could not he sustained unless the jury
was satisfied that the defendants or any
OF them intended to enter an illegal COM
bination." Intent. he said. was psyche
logical and not 20 be ascertsined by
fixed rule OF law.
The Sound lines agreement Of 1886 the
court characterized as obnoxious to the
sherman law" and said that II was for
the jury to consider whether It was kept
In force after 1890 In furtherance of the
conspiracy. Discussing tho testimony of
Mr.. Mellen, Judge Hunt said he had
Thought there would be no serious chal-
lenge as 10 the accuracy Of his state
ments and that the only dispute among
counsel would arise from the inference
TO be drawn from them
History of the Case.
The eleven former directors OF the New
York. New aaven Hartford railroad
who have been on trial for nearly three
months charged with criminal violation
OF the sherman antitrust law expect to
know their fate soon.
The defendants are: william Rookie
Teller and LAWS cass Ledyard. New
York; Edward u RohbIns. New Haven,
Conn; Charles ~ Brookcr, AnSonia,
Conn; ID. Newton Barney. Hartford
Conn; Robert W. Taft. Providence. II,
L.; Charles Nj. Pratt BrpoilypF Henry X
McfIarg. stamford. Conn. James S. Hem
angway. A. Heaton Ropertson and Fred
erick r. Brewster New Haven.
They were specifically charged with
conspiring to nonopollSe the entire trans
portRtion traffic Of New England. They
were indicted an February. 1918. after an
Investigation by the Department OF jus
tice, begun moro than year previous
and the trial began on October 10. Ten
other former directors OF the road were
indicted with them OF whom three made
successful pleas OF Immunity, six OBJ
tanned a separate trial and one. George
Macculloch Miller. was not brought &c
trial on account OF his age. On the yer.
diet OF the jury in this case would largely
depend the attitude OF the government
counsel said today. toward the six win,
gained a separate trial These are Georg,
+. Baker. Theodore N. Vail. Francis r
Maxwell, r. Dewitt Coyler. Edward Mi
ligan and Alexander Cochrane. In IN,
event Of an acduittal by this jury Il wa
mot thought that the case would b.
pressed against the six.
The maximum penalty in the event o
eonviction Is one years imprisonment o
5000 fine. or both
Dates Back sixteen Years.
The alleged conspiracy dated back Il
July ?. 1890. the date OF the enactment
of tho Sherman law. since which ths
New Haven brought under its contro
every railroad In New England except
those owned by the Grand Trunk. man,
steamship lines and some sixty trolle,
dimes In this way Il was alleged 4
stamped out competition and was on IN,
point, the government charges, Of sun
pressing the competition OF the Gran,
Trunk through traffic agreement. whel
tho government IN November 1912. stcppe,
In and indicted Msllen ana two Gran,
Trunk executives. The case against then
was subsequently dropped but Il 4
largely upon this agreement the princl
pal alleged illegan act within the perio,
covered by the statute OF Limitations
that the prosecution In this case base,
Its execution OF a conviction.
All Defendants Prominent.
The trial has been a remarkable on
in many respects. II has been IA,
tinguished by the wealth and prominonc
Of the defendants and Tor the fact tha
for the first time have the directors OF
railroad been brought TO trial under IN
criminal clause OF the Sherman law. tn
defendants have been represented b
nearly score Of noted lawyers, again.
whom the government marshaiied fou
headed BY II. L. Bats. former law par
ner In Texas OF Attorney General GREE
ory. II has been estimated that in eour
sci fees and expenses OF Investigation, 81,
nographers fees. etc. the cost OF Il
trial has reached well over 10000
While not a record In length. the trl
was remarkable By the fact that OF
witness. Charles s. Melien. former pres
dent Of the New Haven. was on the star
for thirty-fiye court days and that eas
side virtually built Up It's case on his te
timouy Four davs ufere snapf in acla,s