The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1918-05-07

y Judge Ashford INDUCED in some plain
talk yesterday when he sustained the
demurrer in the case> Of Hawaiian
Tuna Packing Company. the Hawaiian
Fisheries Company and the Honolulu
Fishing Company against the Pacific
Fishing Company and NJ. Ysmashiro,
The aetiOn was brought through a bill
In equity to compel the defendant to
enter into an agreement with the
plaintiff companies to control the price
of aku, used for bait by the deep sea
fishermen. When the proposed agree.
ment was first announced II was her.
aided with a great blare Of trumpets
from the local representative Of the
federal food administration as q "solu-
ton Of the high cost Of fish problem. "
II was asserted by the plaintiffs that
the defendants agreed TO enter the
leombination which was proposed but
later withdrew such agreement and an
order to show cause why the Pacific
Fishing Company should not Join with
the plaintiff companies was sought.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Thompson & Cathcart and the defend.
ants by Andrews & Pittman. The lat.
ter entered demurrer and it was dur
ing the course of the argument, OF
rather when he ended the argument,
that the circuit court judge proceeded to
"call a spade a spade except when he
! called it a darned old shovel"
Interrupts Argument
r. A. VitOusek, of the counsel for the
| plRintiffs, had been presenting the
Arguments against the demurrer and
for the, issuance of the order TO show
cause when be WAS suddenly interrupt.
cd by, the court and Judge Ashford
saidi +; ~
I"L think / win cali a period TO the
argument. You are not able to con.
vince me and am ready. TO decide
this demurrer. The claim that you put
forth--and I observe you are hardly
able to- suppress smile when you do
itv-that this is an agreement in the
interest OF the public,--well, of course,
that IL 80 Transparent as to make one
either rairthful or angry as his partic
plar inclination or disposition may di.
rect! 'e''.T'h' ~ ,
H;.The idsa Of these gentlemen, who
have been publicly recognized as prof
iteers, fattening Off Of the interests Of
the public, now coming and asking to
be recognized as public benefactors
and that it Is because of the welfare
of the dear public that they come be-
fore court Of equity Is absurd. There
are divers kinds Of eamoufage, but I
have not seen anything that quite
equals this. I consider this an un.
Hieritorious and disreputable proceed
ing. The demurrer Is sustained -
Public, Doesn't See
How q combination of the four fish
ompanies, as'fav6red by Food Admin.
istrator j. F.. Child, to control the aku
fishing industry and the price of such
fish, largely used as bait, would lower
prices was never quite clear to the pub
lie. They are supposed to be compel
ing companies and such an agreement
as was proposed would eliminate such
competition ahd would permit the ar
bitrary fixing of, a price by the com
panies. These companies Child eD
pected to ".control" through their Il
censes, to dictate a price at which they
should sell. II might have worked al
most as well ,ps the fixing Of price
for fsh and then permitting the auc
tioneers TO makeitAe &" fixed price" the
minimum or upset price no matter how
large a supply was in the market, a
plan which Ebep Low cast to the
winds when he auctiohed off fish last
week. "
Fishermen's Plant
As a. part Of the camouhage behind
which the, fishing companies hid, while
Que at least was paying l20 percent
dividends in addition to large salaries
to stockholders, was the complaint Of
fishermen that the price of aku for
bait was so high that fish prices had
to be correspondingly elevated. To
lower the price Of aku the same com
pahiss that were supposed to be in
competition for its sale we're to com
these companies loan the money to buy
the aku which they SELL to secure the
fuel and the provisioning and outftting
Of the fishing boats and have theiI
finger in the pudding that is made by
the auc tiopeers. The apparent assump
ton was they would lower the price il
all competition were to be eliminated
1t is quite evident from the words
Of Judge Ashford that he, at least does
not believe a combination such as il
proposed would work TO the benefit OF
the bait buyer and the fish consuming
public. The judge "viewed with sus
picion" the proposed, arrangement and
fearlessly said what he thought. A
Judge from the bench can use words
which the private citizen cannot use
with IMMUNITY, from civil action and SC
Judge Ashford used the word "prof
iteers" without mincing matters.
Mss, -
NEW YORK, May 4-(Associatec
/ press)-The Victor Talking Maehin,
Company against which action wa,
instituted some, time ago by the fed
eral authorities, who charged that tn,
company as orgaAiEed violates the Sher
man Antitrust Act, was yesterday
declared an illegal combination in re
straint of trade. The decision of tn,
federal court Is that the company mus
dissolve and that the restraining or
ders affecting this are dismissed.