Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-12
BY GREGORY HANKIN.

ter number, however. is misleading, be-
cause Is of those eases are being con-
sidered as one case.
Next in the order Of the number Of
cases are problems OF taxation. of which
there are now five pending; four cases
relate to railroad problems, three to
questions Of infringement of copyrights,
either by radio or orchestral per-
formances: two involve problems con-
corning restraint Of trade, and one case
relates to the disposition of property
of former enemy aliens. That one case,
however, is also listed IN the court as
eight individual cases, but have been
treated and will most probably be dis
posed Of as one case.
Among the cases pending for decision
are also the gag law of Minnesota,
concerning freedom of the press: the
validity of the alien land law Of Wash
ington as applied to a Canadian cor
poration, one question relating to the
procedure to be followed in the courts
in the application of the Federal en-
ployers' liability act, an interesting
question Of marine insurance and a
number Of bankruptcy cases.
Boulder Dam Suit Ponds.
The most important case pending for
decision, however, is the controversy
between the State of Arizona on the
one hand and the States of California,
Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado
and wyoming and the Secretary Of the
Interior on the other hand. This was
a suit brought to enjoin the Secretary
of the Interior and the defendant
States from enforcing or carrying out
any Of the provisions of the Colorado
River compact and the Boulder Canyon
project on the ground that these are
unconstitutional, as depriving the State
Of Arizona Of her sovereign and pro-
prietary rights.
The Colorado River compact was
drafted by representatives Of Arizona
and six defendant States for the pur-
pose OF making an equitable distribu-
ton Of the waters of the Colorado
River, for the storage Of water and the
production Of hydro-electric power, but
mainly to control the floods Of that
river. This compact was to become
binding when approved by Congress and
the seven signatory States. The COM
pact was never ratified by Arizona, be-
cause she claimed its terms were in
equitable, unjust and unfair to her and
deprived her. among other things, of
che use of 100000 acre-feet of water
from the river, all OF which was subject
to appropriation by her.
On December 81, 1928, Congress
passed the Boulder Canyon project act
providing for the distribution of waters
OF the Colorado River, subject to the
terms Of the Colorado River compact.
The act provided, however, that the
compact shall become binding II six
s1gnatory States, including California,
shall sign 1t. Arizona then brought this
suit to enjoin the Secretary Of the
Interior from entering into the territory
OF Arizona and proceeding with the
Boulder Canyon project, claiming that
the act was unconstitutional because cit
attempts to force an agreement upon
Arizona, and permits the secretary to
invade her territory and deprive her Of
her sovereign rights.
May Ask Injunction.
The Gaze was argued on the motion
OF the defendants to dismiss. A few
days after the argument took place the
Secretary Of the Interior entered into
contract with Six Companies. Inc,
for the construction of Boulder Dam at
a cost Of almost $50,000,0 900. Appar-
emily the Secretary figured that If the
motion to dismiss was overruled and
the case proceeded to trial it would
take some two years before the taking
OF the testimony was completed, and by
that time SUFFICIENT work could be done
on the project so that the court could
not order its discontinuance without a
drastic order, and furthermore, that it
could not order the United States to
remove the constructions because that
is not within the power Of the court.
1t Is expected, therefore, that the
State Of Arizona viii file q supplemental
bill in the Supreme Court for temporary
Injunction to restrain the Secretary of
the Interior from proceeding with the
operations.
Another case involving a controversy
between sovereign powers is United
States vs.. Utah, which Is a suit to quiet
title to the beds Of the Green, Colorado
and San Juan rivers at certain places
in the State Of Utah. The real reason
for the controversy is that oil has been
found in those portions of the beds, and
controversy has arisen between the
lessees OF the United States Government
and the leSsees Of the State of Utah
The outcome of the controversy depends
on whether the rivers at those places
were or were not navigable In 1904
when Utah was admitted into the
Union.
OIL Cracking Cases.
The most important case from the
standpoint of national economics is the
suit brought by the United States
against the Standard Oil Co, Of Indiana
Standard OH of New Jersey, the Texas
Company, the Gasoline Products Com
pany and other individuals and cor
porations to enjoin restraint of trade in
the sale and distribution Of gasoline
produced by the cracking" process
The agreements between these compa-
MES, whereby they cross licensed each
other under their patients, are admit
tedly agreements In restraint of trade,
contrary to the Sherman Antitrust
law, If taken apart from the fact that
the use of the patents was made a con-
apart from the fact that the oil COM
panieS claim the agreements were enter
ed into to avoid many suits for infring-
ments of those patients.
Thus, again the question Is presented
70 the supreme Court whether agree
ments, which ordinarily could be in re-
stra1nt OF trade, may be entered into for
furtherance Of a monopoly granted by
the United States under It's patent laws.
That very question was recently decided
by the Supreme Court In an opinion by
Justice Brandeis. In that case, suit was
brought by the American Patents De-
velopment Corporation and the Dry Ice
Corporation against the Carbice Cor
poration for selling solid carbon dioxide
to user of q patent for refrigeration
by means of solid carbon dioxide. This
patent was sold by the American Patent
Developments Corporation on the con-
dition that the purchaser II it shall use
only the carbon dioxide manufactured
by the Dry Ice Corporation.
The Supreme Court held that the
monopoly granted under the patent did
not include the use of any specific car
bon dioxide, and that therefore a suit
for infringement could not be maintain
ed. 1t was not necessary for the court
to rule directly that this condition i'm
posed by the owners of the patent on its
use was contrary to the antitrust law,
but the court strongly intimated that
eY1ek1 raefricfinas ava anaIooo,,s - &I,ara