Evening star., 1945-06-19

yesterday by the Supreme Court
IN the Governments ctpu anti
trust case against the Associated
Press:
The publishers of more than 1.2Ol
newspapers are members of the AS,
ISOLATED Press (AP), co-operativ,
association incorporated under tn,
membership corporation law of tn,
State of New York. It's business i,
the collection, assembly and distri,
button of news.
The news it distributes is origi
nally obtained by direct employe.
OF the association, employees of ths
member newspapers, and the EN-.
ployes of foreign Independent new.
agencies with which AP has con.
tractual relations, such as the
Canadian Press.
Distribution of the news is made
through interstate channels of com
munlcation to the various news.
paper members of the association
who pay for it under an assessment
plan which contemplates no profit
to AP.
The United States filed a bill In
Federal district court for an in
junction against AP and other de-
PENDANTS charging that they hao
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act
rs Stat. 2o9, in that their acts and
conduct constituted Cd COM
blnation and conspiracy in restraint
OF trade and commerce in news
among the States, and Cd an at
tempt to monopolize a part of that
trade.
Heart of United States Charge.
The heart of the Governments S
charge was that appellants had by
concerted action set up system OF
bylaws which prohibited all AP
members from selling news to non
members, and which granted each
member powers to block its non
member competitors from member
ship. These bylaws to which all
AP members had assented, were, in
the context of the admitted facts,
charged to be in violation of the
Sherman Act.
A further charge related to a con-
tract between AP and Canadian
Press "a news agency of Canada,
similar to APP under which the
Canadian agency and AP obligated
themselves to furnish news ex-
clusively to each other. The Dis
trict Court, composed of three
judges, held that the bylaws un-
lawfully restricted admission to AP
membership. and violated the Sher-
man Act insofar as the bylaws pro-
visions clothed a member with pow-
ers to impose or dispense with con-
dltlons upon the admission of his
business competitor Continued OBJ
servance of these bylaws was en-
joined.
The court further held that the
Canadian contract was an integral
part of the restrictive membership
conditions, and enjoined its OBJ
servance pending abandonment of
the membership restrictions. The
Governments motion for summary
Judgment. under Rule Sc of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, (see foot
note d, was granted and its prayer
for relief was granted in part and
denied in part. 50 F. Supp. 1862.
Both sides have brought the case to
us on direct appeal. Is U. S. c., Sec.
%; % U. S. c., Sec. 345.
Contention of Appellants.
At this point, it seems advisable to
pass upon the contention of the
appellants that there were genuine
disputes as to material facts and
that the case therefore should have
gone to trial. The only assignments
of error made by the appellants in
No. 81 GAP ct al. v. United States
relating to this question are that the
court erred sin holding that there
was no genuine issue between the
parties as to any material fact"
and lin not entering summary judg-
ment against the plaintiff.
This latter assignment is based
on the premise that summary pro-
ceedings were properly utilized in
the case. The appellants in No.
50 (Tribune Company and Nc
Cormick V. United States have one
assignment of error to the effect
that the defendants are entitled to
trial of genuine issues of fact un-
mentioned in the findings of courts,
but which if found for the defend
ant would render this holding un-
warranted"
None Of the appellants has pointed
10 any disputed facts essential to
determination of the validity or in
validity of the bylaws and the
contract. Admitting the existence
of both the bylaws and the con-
tract, their answers and their affi-
davits in the summary proceedings
defended the legality of the restric-
tive arrangements, but did not in
any instance deny that nonmembers
of AP were denied access to news of
its member publishers by reason of
the concerted arrangements between
the appellants. Nor was it denied
that the bylaws granted AP men,
bers powers to impose restrictive
conditions upon admission to men,
bership of nonmember competitors.
Agreement on Evidence.
The court below in making find
ings and entering judgment care
fully abstained from the considera-
ton of any evidence which might
possibly be in dispute. We agree
that Rule Sc should be cautiously
invoked to the end that parties may
always be afforded a trial where
there is a bona flde dispute of facts
between them. Sartor v. Arkansas
Nat. Gas Co., 321 u. S. 620.
There was no injury to any of the
appellants as result of the sum-
mary proceedings since, for reasons
to be indicated, the restrictive ar
rangements which appellants ad-
nitted, were sufficient to justify
summary action by the court at that
stage of the case.
In reaching our conclusion on the
summary judgment question, we are
not unmindful of the argument that
newspaper publishers charged with
combining comparatively to violate
= the Sherman Act are entitled tc
have a different and more favorable
i