Evening star., 1933-01-11
COAL men HOPEFUL
OF COURT VICTORY
Arguments for Selling Agency
Are Concluded Before
Supreme Court.
Hy,the Associated Press.

Blythe Associated Press
With argument in the Supreme Court
concluded, bitun1inous coal producers,
organized as Appalachian Goals, Inc,
today had hopes that their selling
agency. who=e legality is be.ng tested,
might have chance to operate.
Significant questioning by Justice
Brandeis, as the case was winding up
conclusion yesterday, was the founda-
ton for the attitude Of the coal men,
whose cooperative move was prompted
by economic conditions.
The Government contended, success
fully In the lower courts, that the 1877
coal producers in Virginia, West Vir-
ginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. had
violated the Sherman antitrust law in
organizing the Appalachian corporation.
A three judge Federal Court enjoined
its operation, and the present appeal
resulted
AS John Lord o'Brian, assistant to
the Attorney General, was emphasizing
yesterday the uncertainty of conditions
which might develop under the corpo-
ration, Justice Brandeis interrupted
. with an inquiry as to what the Govern
ment would say should the court set
aside the injunction and permit the
corporation to operate to see whether
conditions apprehended by the Gov
ernment would result.
Cost Upon Consumer.
O'Brian said that would mean the
consumer would pay the cost OF the ex-
pertinent. He expressed objection.
The justice then asked him TO de-
fine what the Government considered
an unreasonable combination, under
constructions placed by the court on
the Sherman act O'Brian replied
that any organization which had for
its purpose to increase prices and elm
mate competition would be unreason-
able. He insisted it was not normal
for q group of competitors In the BIZ
tnminous coal industry to organize a
selling agency to fix prices and to
market their product, regardless of the
difference In cost of production among
them.
Justice Brandeis then asked whether
It would not be less Objectionable under
the Sherman act for 1877 producers
to operate thorugh q selling agent
rather than combine into one cor
poration. This course had been ap-
proved in the case Of the United States
Steel Corporation.
" lA4dA AAoLotCd ~ WhS lOt kUI Iklc
courts to grant relief to a suffering
industry, but that producers should
look to Congress to amend the Sher-
act, taking the position that the courts,
by constituting the act, should not, in
effect, legislate to change its pro-
visions.
Permission to Operate.
z. L. Greever in closing the argument
for the corporation, emphasized that
the corporation should be permitted to
operate to develop definitely what its
effect would be and thus disclose
whether 1t violated the Sherman act.
asserting bituminous operators had
been selling their product through
agents for more than so years, he In
sisted there was nothing new in the
proposed corporation and Joined Col.
William j. Donovan OF New York, as
societe counsel, who had spoken ear
isr in the day. In declaring the cor
r 7-aticn would not be able to fix prices
tcoou-e Of the competition it would
'.;cet from coal produced by non-mem-
: = mines.
CBrian in his argument told the
49, that should it sustain the Appa-
th-2n Goals, Inc, 1t was the purpose
the bituminous coal industry in the
5Cshern States to organize nine or ten
Eaiiar corporations covering substan-
tally 30 per cent Of all the bituminous
coal produced there,
Justice Brandeis then stated the
courts had already interpreted the law
as permitting reasonable combinations
and suggested 1t had been asserted the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of
the proposed corporation could not be
determined except on facts developed
by its actual operation. It might be
dimcult. de said, for the court to de-
eide whether the proposed corporation
was an abnormal development in the
industry, and therefore illegal, without
knowing how the selling agent would
operate.