Belington progressive. [volume] (Belington, W. Va.) 1912-1927, 1924-02-07

problem that while he price is an
important element there is another
consideration even more compelling
If this main object flow priced
nitrates for farmers in peace and the
Government in war; is accomplished
the amount of money received for the
property is not a primary or major
consideration
Referring to German-owned proper.
ty. the court said
Much of this property was not
innocently held or held solely for
trade and commerce Inform alton ac-
quired by German-owned ompanies
had been transmitted to Berlin. and
there indexed and made available to
German competitors and the German
Government The files Of one COM
papers, but with pan-German litera-
ture It was q distributor centre for
propaganda in this country"
uphoIds confiscation Of Patents
Judge Morris pointed out that when
America entered the war she adhered
to the International convention for.
bidding poison gas. but 1t soon be-
came apparent that America would be
fighting on disastrously unequal terms
unless she should make use Of all the
dread weapons being used against her
by the foe. When Germany persisted
In her attempts to destroy her oppo-
nents with poison gas in contraven.
she made 1T manifest that Americas
future safety lay In Americas chemi-
cal independence. The am endment to
the act was passed in the darkest
days of the war following the sale of
seized properties). 1t was thought
Paris was about TO fall and the Chan
mel ports be taken" These were the
circumstances, said the opinion,
(which impelled Congress to grant the
President the broad powers OF almost
absolute ownership. 1t was the intent
of Congress to subordinate mere prop
erty rights to the welfare Of the ma
tion."
OF the vafue Of the patents sold,
Judge Morris held, in accordance with
the testimony, that while DIR. Carl
Holderman, German, asserted the
Haber patents were worth $17,000,000
to the Germans, "the evidence is over.
whelming that they were and are
without substantial affirmative value
to American citizens. Had these pat
ents been sold to Americans at public
rather than private sale and only the
net proceeds paid to their former
have suffered an almost total loss In
the value of their property"
Praises Work of Foundation
AS to allegations that the sale was
not to obtain fair value, but to pro-
mote the interests of the chemical and
dye industries and that the transac-
ton was in legal effect granting a
subsidy to private industry, the Court
commented. "this challenge to the
motives Of the officers making the
sale is supported. think. neither by
the facts nor the law. Mr.. Polk de-
termined the public interest would be
best served by a wide use of the in.
ventions covered by the patents. II
the property was sold under terms
and conditions that assured Its being
devoted to the public use 1t matters
not what benefits or detriments may
have flowed as incidents therefrom.
"The property is in the keeping OF
men who have In its management no
selfish interest to serve and whose de-
votion to the public interest has been
continued the opinion.
mo better plan for devoting the
to public use has been sug-
gested. The plan has stood the most
severe of all tests-actual trial The
defendant has kept the faith This
1t has done, not only by granting Ii
censes in furtherance of the purposes
for which it was chartered, but also |
at its great expense, by distribution
Of books and pamphlets showing the |
national necessity fey practical devel- |
opment of chemical science in Ameri. |
ca. II, perchance, those heretofore |
engaged in the industries have de- |
rived an incidental advantage from |
The plan, that incidental result cannot |
lnvalidate transaction lawfully con.
summated in. the public interest. The |
same charge would lie against the |
of every tariff act.
The sale was in effect to America and
It's citizens, not to those then engaged |
n chemical and allied industries"
Judge Morris ruled that if the ex.
scutives entrusted by Congress with
power Of sale acted within the scope
If that power their acts are not sub.
iect to judicial notification or review.
Invasion by the courts to determine
whether the public interest required
The property be sold otherwise than
lnder the statutory conditions pre-.
scribed and to- set aside the sale
should the judgment OF the court be
different from that OF the President
would be a Judicial notification not
~ % Dra