Arizona republican., 1920-04-27
DECISION ORDERS DISSOLUTION IF
 THEIR HOLDINGS
Holds Combinations Have Violated Terms of Sher- man Anti Trust Actin dividuals Are Exonerated in Opinion; Reading Go. Scored
Republican A. p. Leased wireJ

ASdiNGION, Apru 2b. An nouncing its decision in a part of the long pending anthracite coal trust cases today, the supreme court in a four to three opinion sustained a ma jority of the governments charges of illegal combination against the Read ing company, a Pennsylvania holding corporation, and certain of it's railroad and coal subsidiaries and ordered their dissolution. Chief Justice White and Associate Justices Holmes and Van Devanter dissented, while Justices Me Reynolds and Brandeis took no part
 Associated with the Reading com pany as defendants were the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal company and the Lehigh Coal and Navigation company and the constant recurrence of the words 'EDehigh company caused th> opinion to exist that the so-cailed e. high case. which actually refers to the Lehigh Valley Railroad company and which was argued last fall, with the Reading case, was being decided also Dispatches saying the government had also won Its case against the Lehigh Valley Railroad company were sent out and it was not until an hour later when copies of Justice Clarke's opinion were made available that it was found that the court had acted on the Read ing case also. The court concluded
 
 reaching the Lehigh Valley railway case.
 Violated Antitrust Act
 The majority opinion held the hold ing company guilty of violation of the sherman antitrust act and reversed federal court decrees rendered in Philadelphia in 1915 refusing to sus- tain the governments charges of mon opoiy but directing separation of the central railway of New Jersey from it's subsidiary coal company, the Le- high and Wilkesbarre Coal compaay Dissolution was ordered by the su- prene court of the Reading connpanv. the Philadelphia and Reading Railway company; the Philadelphia and Read ing Coal and Iron company: the Cen. traI Railroad of New Jersey and the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal com pany. maintained through the holding corporation, so that they would be en- tirely independent of each other. Dis position of the stock and bonds of the companies held by the Reading com pany also was directed.
 The court. however. sustained lower court decrees abSolving the Lehien Coal and Navigation company the I,e- high and New England Railroad com pany and the Lehigh and Hudson River Railway company on charges as to restrictive covenants in mining leases with respect to the shipping or tOdl ana ISiuSlNS 70 Oruer the QlS1S- sociation of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron company ana the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal con- pany maintained through the holding company
 Exonerate Individuals
 Charges against directors of the hold fn.s company, including the late George F. Baer and Henry c. Prick, as well as George r. Baker, Henry A. Du Pout. Daniel Willard, Henry P. McKean and Samuel Dickson, who were also named as defendants, were dismissed.
 "A majority of the individual de fendants," the finding said, ''have died since the suit was instituted and their successors have not been made parties. and since the conclusion to be an ncCnced can be given full effect by an appropriate decree against the corpo- ration defendants, the case as against the remaining individual defendants need not be considered and as to them the bill will be dismissed without pre- judice.''
 Similar action was taken in regard to the Wilmington & Northern Railway company. Injunctions restraining en- forcement of provisions inserted by the Reading & Wilkesbarre Coal company in coal leases requiring the lessee to ship all coal mined by designated rail routes were made permanent. the court condemning such provisions as un- lawful.
 Scores Reading Company
 Justice Clarke, in the ma ajority opin- ion. charged the Reading holding com pany by an adroit division of property ard corporate agency with purposely 'in a fragrant manner" the Sherman antitrust act and with sup pressing commerce and competition.
 + was also declared to have secured g. dominating contract not only over two great competing coal interests as well as two great competing interstate railroad carriers, but the court said this dominating power was not ob- laiI cd by normal expansion to meet the demands of a. business growing as a re- suit of superior and enterprisIng man agement but by deliberate. calculated purchase for control"
 The majority opinion referred to the conducted in 1915 by the interstate commerce commission into he transportation of anthracite coal. which. the court said. showed unlawful discrimination against other coal ship 5ers by the holding company with the Reading Coal company and by the Central company with the Wilkesbarre Goal company" asserting "such fa- -eritism tends to discourage competi- ion and to unduly restrain commerce"
 Chief Justice White rendered a brief minority opinion. in which the dissent ng justices contended that the lower