Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-02-25
u. S. JURY CITES
120 COAL BARONS
lContInued From Page One.l

Coal Association and Robert W. Coulter,
have been during the last three years and
are now engaged in the creation defining
and marking out Of certain zones or ter
ritorial limits into which coal may be
shipped, and in advising each and all
the members thereof of the territorial
limits and zones; also in procuring re-
ports and statistics from each and all
amount of coal produced by each mine
belonging to each other, the amount of
coal produced by each mine belonging to
members of the bureaus and the price
received and whether sold on contracts
for future delivery or on the present
market and that this information was
furnished to the various bureau members,
the National Coal Association keeping
them posted on this information and that
this information was to be used in con-
cert so tnat they might mine or refuse
TO wine and withhold coal from the chan
nels or commerce and also control prices,
these bureaus being maintained by dues
from their various members.
Section (e) charges that during the
period of three years before the return of
the indictment the defendants were all
engaged in keeping down tn production
OF coal as part Of the conSpiract, re-
straining its distribution and restraining
trade In coal among the several States in
various ways. One of such ways, 1t is
charged, was to promote strikes among
miners in order that the mines would not
be In operation and coal could not In
such places be produced. and that as q
part of this plan the defendants attended
and participated In the joint conferences
held and engaged in certain agreements,
one OF terms Of which agreements was
that no strike should occur or be al
lowed among miners at any time, without
the order, consent and approval of the
miners representatives and officials. That
in order to prevent any such strike IL
was further provided in the agreements
m II tir
miners at all should strike without such
consent, that each of the miners would
be subject 10 a penalty and that a per
cent OF their wages could be kept and
retained by the operators. That nOtWith-
standing this agreement, numerous and
various strikes occurred among the
miners at the various mines OF these de-
PENDANTS without such consent and on
account Of the various acts and conduct
on the part of both operators and miners
That for the purpose of allowing these
strikes to occur whenever the miners
themselves desired, the operators refused
and refrained from demanding such pen
atty on account Of any strikes and re-
/ Iused TO Keep out any part Of the wages
OF the miners and thereby encouraged
ana permitted the agreements to be
/ broken and such strikes to frequently
occur in the various mines of the opera
! tors named in the indictment These
acts, 1t is charged, that the agreements
provided that during any strike the mines
should be kept open and the miners at
work pending a settlement. However, it
/ IS charged, this agreement was not Kept
by either the operators or the miners
/ In section IL it is charged that the de-
PENDANT operators privately among them
selves and through their various trade
bureaus and organizations and as q part
Of the conspiracy to restrain trade agreed
mutually that in the selling of coal for
future delivery they would make only
such contracts as were uniform in their
/ terms. 1t was also agreed that in the
eyent theer was an increase of miners
wages during the lif eof the contract the
defendants could increase the price Il
Is charged that in every case where the
miners wages were at any time increased
that the contract price was increased
without reference to the actual cost Of
production.
Section go alleges that the operators
and sales agencies refused to enter into
contract unless it was provided the de-
livery Of coal Under the contract would
be based upon the particular number Of
( days each mine would run. That at
times the operators arbitrarily closed
down their mines in order to limit the
shipments of coal on contracts That
later whe nthe mine was operated at full
capacity that the operator would refuse
TO make up the deficit on the contract
resulting from the failure to ship dur
1 ing the week when the mine was closed
down. This resulted in restricting the
/ distribution Of coal.
( Section (h) charges that the de-
/ PENDANTS refused to sell or ship coal to
/ dealers who were not members of the re-
I tail coal dealers associations and organ
/ tzatiOns. and also refused TO sell coal to
purchasers beyond their own immediate
needs. ana required the purchasers to
( order and receive and to abide by this
! plan. 1t was further provided that such
/ purchasers should not-in any event store
or dispose of any coal furnished them
( by defendants to their employees or other
persons.
Section o. charges that these defend
ants refused to sell or ship coal direct
TO consumers whenever the local dealers
| objected to such sales and shipments
Section 90 alleges that as part of said
general conspiracy the defendants ar
ranged that their coal mines would re-
main Idle at various times during each
year and thereby restrict adm decrease
I the production and distribution of coal
IN order that the price Of coal could be
/ increased.
Section (k) charges the defendant
operators with maintaining and con-
trolling certain organizations which were
III TACT sales agencies which were sep
arated in name only from the producing
companies, but were in reality but the
operating companies themselves, and in
tins manner that they controlled the
prices Of coal and increase and initiate
these prices and that they were able to
keep their mines closed during a large
part OF the time Of each year when the
mines could have been in operation by
arranging that the sales company would
that the defendants would then claim
there was no market for coal and thereby
keep their mines closed.
Section % charges that the defendants.
1 during large part Of the time covered
by the Indictment, declined and refused
/ 70 enter into contracts for future deliv-
cry of coal at a fixed price and agreed
that they would sell in quantities only
for the ruling price at the time Of de-
livery: that this was done to create q
scarcity and cause high and excessive
price of coal AS part of this plan they
conducted a campaign through the press
in 1920 predicting a coal shortage and
urging customers to make immediate
contracts. They then fixed the prices, 1t
is charged, at an unjust and unreason-
able figure. All of this greatly restrained
coal distribution and created an aDnor-
NAL condition and made 1t necessary for
consumers to pay excessive prices and
also resulted in a coal shortage al q re-
sultOf which various industries were
compelled to close aind cease operations.
Section I'M charges that the defend
ants obtained and held a monopoly In
the production of bituminOus coal and
agreed to destroy competition and not to
compete among themselves. They fur
Their agreed tina tail idle time at various
coal mines should be charged and added
to the coast of production and that all
increases in miners wages should be
added. At times when the market price
of coal was unsatisfactory the defend
ants did not produce coal and withheld
shipment and delivery of coal con-
tracted for They demanded changes OF
contract prices during the life of said
contracts and united in giving out state
ments to the public to the effect that
there was about to be a coal shortage
when such was not the case.