The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1917-10-02
EARLY ACTION ON
DRAFT Law CASES
High Court Has Before 1t
Suits From Four States
on the Subject.
CBy Associated Press)

- NAoaANS4 YIN CCtODeT 1.-Two
big antitrust cases involving the dis
solution of the United States Steel
Corporation. the International Har-
sester Company, the United Shoe
Machinery Company and the Lehigh
Valley Railroad and the Reading
Companies and affiliated coal COM
panies, the so-called anthracite coal
trust cases, together with proceedings
from four states to test the constitu-
honality Of the draft law, are before
the United States Supreme Court,
which reconvened yesterday following
the annual summer recess.
The opening yesterday was purely
perfunctory, adjournment being taken
almost Immediately in order to per-
NIT Chief Justice White and his asso-
ciates to pay their customary call on
President Wilson. The hearing of
arguments on the pending cases will
begin tomorrow, but court officials do
not anticipate any decisions being
handed down for several weeks.
Among the first cases disposed Of
1t is expected, will be those growing
out o. the enforcement of the draft
law. IL these were permitted to come
up in. their regular order. they would
not be reached for eighteen months
but Attorney General Gregory plans
to ask that they be advanced for early
decirion. While government officials.
and especially those connected with
the War department, feel that there
is no question about the validity of
the law, decision by the highest
court would do much to discourage
contrary sentiment manifested in va
rious sections of the country.
Appeals from the decision Of Judge
Speer in Georgia, who upheld the con-
stitutionallty Of the law, and cases
from Minnesota. Ohio and New York,
which include those of Emma Gold
man and Alexander Berkman, con-
ylcted OF attempting to oppose the
carrying into effect the law by urging
men within the draft ages not to reg
Y lster, have been filed. All are oct
ed to be decided at the same time.
Dates have not been fixed for the
hearing of arguments in the antitrust
suits. These cases were argued last
term. Rumors that owing to the war,
action on them would be delayed un-
til after peace was declared were met
by Chief Justice White ordering them
re-argued at this session. The cases
stand near the top OF the docket, and
Unless delays occur, court officials ex-
Dect the Harvester and the anthracite
trust cases to come UP for considera-
ton this month and the others short
~ afterwards. This will be the sec
ond time the steel and the shoe ma
ichinery cases have been argued and
iithe third time for the Harvester and
Sauthracite suits.
The Harvester case was appealed
to the Supreme Court from the Min
nesota Federal court, which in 1914,
ordered the dissolution of the COM
pany and its subsidiary organizations,
combining 1924 900, 900 assets, as be-
ing in violation Of the Sherman law.
The government maintains that the
mere combining of competitive trad
ers, voluntary or otherwise, into
'.preponderant or dominant position"
in an industry constitutes in itself
violation of the antitrust laws. The
defendants claim that dissolution
decree is not justified on the grounds
De mere size and power, contending
furthermore that the so-called Har-
Tester trust is good" combination.
The enormous size and power alleg-
I'd to be exercised in suppressing COM
petition are the principal reasons
upon which the dissolution of the
United States Steel Corporation Is
asked by the government. Suit was
brought In the New jersey Federal
district court in 1911, but was dis
missed four years later by Judges
Burlington, Mcpherson, Wooley and
Hunt, who held that, although the
corporation was formed for the pur-
pose of illegally monopolizinS and re-
straining trade. 1t has not been able
alone to fix and maintain prices and
Is not an actual monopoly. The gov
eminent at once appealed the case,
and 1t was argued in March, 1917.
The proceeding in the shoe machin-
err. case was instituted in the Massa-
chusetts Federal district court in
yl9l1, but was dismissed after volum-
nous testimony had been taken, the
court sustaining the defendants on all
grounds. Thie case also was argued
Eefore the Supreme Court in March,
1917, and later was ordered re-argu-
ed this term. The United Shoe Ma
thincry Company was organized in
1899, with y capital stock OF $685.
600, 900. The government alleges
that this concern has monopolized the
shoe machinery field and upon the de-
cision In this case rests the future of
the American shoe industry.
Violation of the antitrust law by
restraining trade and violation of the
commodities clause by transporting
coal in which they were interested is
charged by the government in the
suits against the Lehigh Valley rail-
road company and the Reading COM
rany, q holding company. owning the
Reading railroad. the Central Rail-
road of New Jersey, together with
coal company stocks. The New York
district court overthrow the govern
ment's contentious and dismissed the
Lehigh case. In the Reading case,
The lower court overruled all Of the
governments charges except to direct
the separation Of the Central Rail-
road of New Jersey from It's subsidi-
airy coal company. the Lehigh &