Evening journal., 1920-03-02
RESALE PRICE
FIXING ILLEGAL
Decision Affects Virtually
Every Dealer and All
Consumers
OHIO TRIBUNAL
is REVERSED

WASHINGTON. March 2.-Althoug
the opinion handed down by the Su
preme Court in the United states Stee
case seemed TO overshadow all othe
issues acted upon by that tribunal
there is nationwide interest in th'
declaration OF the court to the effec
that The fixing OF resale prices OF com
modIties by their manufacturers was
a violation OF the Sherman antitrust
law.
This decision. which is the fourth r
recent years bearing upon the same
question OF business policy, affects
every retailer OF a patented or pro-
prletsry article in the United States
and therefore every user or consumer
Of such article.
The opinion was rendered orally. II
was announced from the bench that
the written decision was not ready for
the public, but would be given out
about the middle OF the week. For that
reason the exact lines which the court
followed In arriving at Its conclusions
was not made clear to those In, the
court room, not even TO the govern
ment attorneys, who were present ana
who were directly interested In the
case.
This much seems TO have been under
stood. however: The Supreme Court
holds that the fixing Of any resale price
is Illegal. This Is true whether or not
the fxer OF such prices Intentionally or
actually creates a monopoly. Nor is
the case acted upon yesterday a re-
versal OF the decision rendered In the
Colgate case about six or eight months
ago.
The lower courts had taken differ
ent view OF the question. They had
dismissed A. Shrader's Sons, Incorpor-
ated. manufacturers OF accessories for
pneumatic tires, indictments which had
charged the defendants with entering
into a conspiracy and a combination In
restraint OF trade through contracts
with tire manufacturers and dealers
whereby the resale prices to dealers
and users wereAxed.
The lower courts, failing 10 find evil
dence Of monopoly In the trade prac-
fices Of A. Schrader's Sons, quashed
the indictments. The government, now
ever. appealed. and upon appeal The
SUPREME Court reversed the lower
courts. explaining very definitely that
monopoly was not the sole issue in
yolved: that a resale price flxsd by a
manufacturer was unlawful whether
monopoly was designed or not and
that the governments contention was
correct
The court. in order 10 sweep away
arr misconceptions upon this much 1
m0oiei question, took occasion 10 de-
clare that The Colgate decision would
htre ~ conform to the Schradcr deci-
sft1 nerariment OF Justice officials i
lass rti looked upn that feature Of
fhe opinion yesterday as important
yh8 Colgate decision. IL mlgat be
sia'ad. left many Interested involved
in doubt as 10 their liberty OF action
81 fixing resale prices. Il appeared TO
sciae lhat il was legal for a manufac-
trrer 30 fx resale prices. provided he
d'd 70 without intent 70 beat iown
competition or TO exercise monopoly
in re distribution OF his wares.
taeiier still the Supreme Court dealt
With the same general question The
first case Of this sort to attract wide
spread attention as the 0'Donnell case
arising from the courts in the District
OF Columbia, which seemed to end in a
decisive deefat for those WIN sought
to dictate fhe price, at which their
goods might be resold TO the customer.
4 little later the mimeograph was act
ed upon by the highest court with
substantially the same result. But af-
terward came the Colgate case. which
misled many people into thinking that
the court had recersed itself in allow
Ing the fixing OF resale prices under
certain general conditions