Imperial Valley press., 1916-09-28
GOVERNMENT AND COAL

GOVERNMENT AND COAL
limited States Attorney General Gregory mas Lieu
- tho s,,nreme court brief in his appeal from the Ge
ision bv federal court in Pennsylvania refusing le
Governments plea for dissolution OIL t!e M neaos ~ nd
way Company, under the Sherman a'1-.i @ ae' Tbi
the commodities clause of the railroad rate act. ms
.onnanv is Familiarity known as the backbone VI ule
leeed anthracite monopoly The STRIKING tlg al aott the
the brief is its implied confession OF the lnoy VI M M
judiciary department to deal, Adequately Oh
vitb tirls or combination monopoly set up anu lli
tanned bv private interests IN opposition TO- anu III Is
If LEGISLATION designed safeguard the puolc "elIe
THE attorney generals brief says that thls nolus eo
oro+;on or community of combines, has history per
meated with legality and characenzed oy oelioeite
nurpose to drive others from the tled n"cli II
tbn result being increased prices OF the colhIo's II
SdlnS ont of all proportion the Increased cost o.
roduction To the coalconsumng puoIc lheIe IS nun
mo new in this of course, for the TACT tnat e Goa
monopolies actually made proIlt ruhlills nv - S;
millions out of an increase OF wages gfaiiIeu 'el
onnlovees has long been notorious. Whal IS Ieia Nd
he is that the government is stll arguing e caSe
:; coal monopoly in court and IN Terms tnal "a" N;
tben an admission Of defeat sadly unged with nunila
The in the present instance, con-
rends that the Reading Holding company or, proper!
the Reading Companies, through ltS suoSiula l0o' w
Reading Coal Company and the Reading Railway Solli'
oanv controls the production and transportation ol ti
Ihracite coal from the lands IN the Schuykl region lo
ta.v to the lines of the Reading Railway Company anu
ihat this control was acquired and maintained oy ote
Than normal methods of industrial development Ne iui
ther contends that the Reading Holding Company "ii
IN control of the Reading Railway COMPANY ana ,
Reading Coal Company acquired control OF he Oehlfa
Railway Company of New Jersey competing garner ol
anthracite and of the Lehigh and Wksbarre Coal Col-
pany competing produced OF ahtnrace, lul.liea te
straning and monopOlizing the productlo tlahspOra
sion and sale of such COAL The Reading Railway Oo-
nanv and the Central Railway Company OF New jersey
are said transport 80 per cent OF the to5a ao VI
anthrace coal moving from the mines and the Reading
Coal COMPANY and the Wikesbarre Coal company, TO-
aeher are said to and control 63 per cent OF the en-
tire deposits of anthracite COAL , =. =,
Here we have it all nutshell; but again II SnOulu
he made plain that there is nothing new IN any OF THESE
statements or assertions allegations: The judiciary
department has not just made these discoveries Inc
courts have just been informed OF then Inc exist
ence of such abuses of restraint of trade OF illegal com
bnaton which, would seem from the encouragement
brief the judiciary department. for some reason IS ui
able to enforce.
We have it from the brief that 'at the current rate
of mining and coal areas of the companies thus eagued
and combined together according to the generally accept
ed calculations of geoogsts and mining engineers VIII
otlaSt by many years those OF any competitor In tle
therefore this combination if not dissolved will own OF
control every ton Of commercially available anthracite
known exist and whilst IN almost any other branch OF
industry it is at least possible for monopoly to be broken
V the influx of fresh capital attracted by high profits
against monopoly Of anthracite the supply OF which Is
limited there be protecton-ony the law can give
relief"
But the law cannot and will not, give relief auto
maticaly Laws intended to meet this very situation were
enacted years ago. They have been pronounced tine and
again. ana Dy competent SuIClet II
y enforced to protect the public against aonopostic
combination. Counsel forthe combinations ana trusts
have repeatedly claimed that the Sherman law and the
commodities clause of the railroad "ct oppressive
business and they are constantly demaTdrc repeal Of
these measures They have not in repeating
them but is there any reason to aoubt, in view u 1h
price control exercised certain important dit
les, that they have been able largely to prevent their
torcement?
The brief of the attorney general is a glaring
tession that combination trust monopoly, insti-
ply of nation exists in defiance of the law and of the
government There is question about the facts or