New-York tribune., 1922-11-26
U. 5. Drops Gas
Mantle Trust
Case Against LII
Dismissal of Indictment Re-
turned Here Charging Mo-
nopoly Is Requested by
the Attorney General
Trial Is Not. Justified
Daugherty Doubts That a
Conviction Could BE Oh.
tanned i'm Proceedings

The dismissal of an indictment re-
turned last March against the United
Gas Improvement Company, the Wells
bach Company, the Cities Illuminating
Company and eight individuals, charg-
ing them with conspiracy in restraint
of trade, will be asked by William Hay
ward, United States Attorney, in ac-
from Attorney General Daugherty, it
was announced yesterday.
The Attorney General declares in his
letter to MIR. Hayward that he regards
it as doubtful whether a conviction in
the case could be obtained. The in
dictment followed an inquiry by
special investigators in which 1t was
asserted that since 1919 the defend
ants had had complete monopoly Of
the gas mantle business.
The individual defendants in the in
dictment are Samuel T. Bodine, presi-
dent of the United Gas Improvement
Company, of Phi,adelphia; Randall Nor
gan, of Philadelphia, vice-president of
the company; Sidney Mason, president
of the Welsbach Company; E. S. New
bold, president of the Cities Illuminat-
ing Company and vice-president Of the
Welsbach Street Lighting Company;
Arthur E. Shaw, president Of the Wells
bach Street Lighting Company and
ing Company: William Findley Brown,
director OF the Cities Illuminating
Company and at the time an Assistant
District Attorney of Philadelphia;
Charles Patterson, of the Patterson
Street Lighting Company, of St. Paul
and Minneapolis, and George NJ. Lam
ders, president of Landers, Frary &
Clark, manufacturers of textures.
MIR. Daugherty's Letter
The letter Of the Attorney General
follows:
November "a, 1892.
Colonel William Hayward,
Omitted States Attorney,
New York, N. Y.
Dear Colonel Hayward
AN indictment was returned in the
District Court Of the United States of
America for the Southern District Of
New York in the case Of United States
of America against the United Gas
Improvement Company and others
March 6, 1922.
Since the indictment was returned
some complaint was made by the par
ties Interested in bringing the matter
to the attention of the Department of
Justice that the indictment was de-
fective and that q motion to direct a
verdict for the defendants on the
charges of the Indictment and the case
made by the proof might. be sustained.
Information is at hand indicating that
former Attorney Generals of the United
States had grave doubts as TO whether
the charges covered hv This indictment
related to Interstate commerce. Proof
of venue and criminal acts within the
statute Of limitations necessary to sup
port conviction renders successful
prosecution extremely doubtful.
Trial Not Justified
"For these and other reasons an in
vestigation has been made Of the eVi
dence and the law relating to the
| am now Of opinion that the govern
ment would not be justified in going to
trial upon it. You arc, therefore, re-
quested. if such action meets with
your approval, to ask the court to
dismiss the Indictment
while your name as District At
torney was necessarily signed to the
Indictment, l recall that your office
had no active part III presenting it TO
the grand jury and that the. matter
was handled directly from the Depart
ment of Justice in Washington BY 6
special assistant to the Attoroney
General. This fact reiieycs yopr office
from any responsibility if an error
was made in returning the indictm ent,
which / now request be dismissed.
"(Signed) II. NJ. DAUGHERTY.
Attorney General"