Co. 213 Fed. 240, 238 U. S. 516, 59 L. ed. 1438, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873.

Interstate commerce would none the less be affected, and the monopoly in question none the less in force, even if the Lehigh Railroad had dissociated itself at the mouth of the mines from the coal produced and purchased by the Lehigh Coal Company by transferring the title to the Lehigh Coal Sales Company.

Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507, 512, 51 L. ed. 295, 298, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159; Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124, 128, 54 L. ed. 965, 967, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 264, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; United States v. Reading Co. 226 U. S. 324, 367, 57 L. ed. 243, 258, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 9 L. ed. 1004; W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 307; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 398, 399, 49 L. ed. 518, 525, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276; Employers' Liability Cases (Howard v. Illinois C. R. Co.) 207 U. S. 463, 52 L. ed. 297, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co. 221 U. S. 229, 55 L. ed. 716, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Gibbs v. McNeeley, 60 L.R.A. 152, 55 C. C. A. 170, 118 Fed. 120.

The contract of March 1, 1912, between the Lehigh Coal Company and the Lehigh Coal Sales Company, is, in and of itself, a contract in restraint of trade, because of the provisions for exclusive dealing prohibiting the Lehigh Coal Company from selling to any other buyer, and prohibiting the Lehigh Coal Sales Company from buying from any other seller.

United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 238 U. S. 516, 59 L. ed. 1438, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873.

The fact that the controlling stockholders of the Lehigh Coal Sales Company are the same persons as the controlling stockholders of the Lehigh Railroad (even though, standing alone, it might not bring the transportation by the Lehigh Railroad of a commodity belonging to the Lehigh Coal Sales Company within the prohibition of the commodity clause) in itself negatives any dissolution of the monopoly.

United States v. Union P. R. Co. 226 U. S. 470, 57 L. ed. 306, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep.

162.

If a transaction violates constitutional enactments of Congress such as the

immaterial whether or not the transaction has the sanction of state law.

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 346, 48 L. ed. 679, 705, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436; United States v. Union P. R. Co. 226 U. $. 61, 86, 57 L. ed. 124, 133, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53.

Nor would it make any difference if the combination denounced as illegal by the Anti-trust Act had existed prior to the passage of that act under the authority of valid state laws.

Trans-Missouri

United States V. Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 290, 342, 41 L. ed. 1007, 1028, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 55 L. ed. 617, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 734; United States v. American Tobacco Co. 164 Fed. 700, 221 U. S. 106, 176, 55 L. ed. 663, 692, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 632; Boyd v. New York & H. R. Co. 220 Fed. 174.

The law of Pennsylvania, even as construed by defendants, has never done more than permit a railroad company to acquire an interest in the stocks of coal mining companies, and in some instances an interest in coal mines. The law of Pennsylvania, construe it as broadly as we may, has never authorized a railroad company to monopolize the business of shipping coal or any other commodity over its line, as the Lehigh Railroad has done. It has never authorized a railroad company, by all manner of rebates and preferences, to build up the business of one mining company, in which it had an interest, at the expense of all others shipping over its road, as the Lehigh Railroad has done.

V.

United States Teleph. Co. v. Central U. Teleph. Co. 122 C. C. A. 86, 202 Fed. 66; Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. United States, 226 U. S. 20, 49, 57 L. ed. 107, 117, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 9; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com. 3 Sadler (Pa.) 83, 7 Atl. 368; United States v. Delaware & H. Co. 164 Fed. 215; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Duncan, 111 Pa. 352, 5 Atl. 742; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Patent, 1 Sadler (Pa.) 467, 17 W. N. C. 198, 5 Atl. 747; United States v. Reading Co. 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 243, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361, 50 L. ed. 515, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Chincleclamouche Lumber & Boom Co. v. Com. 100 Pa. 445.

The engrossing by a railroad of virtually the entire trade in coal trans

Com. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. | 132 Pa. 592, 7 L.R.A. 634, 19 Atl. 291; Hartwell v. Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co. 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 231; United States v. Delaware & H. Co. 164 Fed. 224.

The acquisition of the capital stock of Coxe Brothers & Company, Incorporated, by the Lehigh Railroad stands equally upon a perfectly lawful basis.

Both from the very nature of things, that is, the comparatively small control proportionately, and from the actual facts, that is, the proof of what has occurred and is occurring, none of the evils of monopoly or restraint of trade in interstate commerce exist in this case, nor can exist.

cause, and, with Mr. Everett Warren, filed a brief for the Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company:

The decisions of the lower courts upon questions of fact will be followed unless shown to be clearly erroneous.

Brainard v. Buck, 184 U. S. 99, 46 L. ed. 449, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; United States v. Carter, 217 U. S. 236, 301, 54 L. ed. 769, 773, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515, 19 Ann. Cas. 594; Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Asso. 209 U. S. 29, 23, 52 L. ed. 663, 665, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335, 14 Ann. Cas. 501; The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, 42 L. ed. 1181, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 753.

Those presumptions of good faith and integrity which have been recognized for ages as attending human action have not been overthrown by any legislation in respect to common carriers.

United States v. Boyer, 85 Fed. 425; Re Greene, 52 Fed. 113; Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 29 L. ed. 257, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1091; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517520, 29 L. ed. 716, 717, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Robbins v. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 497, 30 L. ed. 697, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 346, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. 96 Fed. 359.

There is no legal identity between the Lehigh Railroad Company and the Lehigh Coal Company.

United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 415, 53 L. ed. 851, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; Exchange Bank v. Macon Constr. Co. 97 Ga. 1, 33 L.R.A. 800, 25 S. E. 328; United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 220 U. S. 266, 55 L. ed. 461, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387; United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 213 Fed. 253; Noyes, Intercorporate Relations, 2d ed. 295; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri P. R. Co. 115 U. S. 587, 29 L. ed. 499, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194; Shepp v. Schuylkill Valley Traction Co. 17 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 52; United States v. Stinson, 197 U. S. 200, 49 L. ed. 724, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426.

Messrs. F. W. Wheaton and Allan McCulloh filed a brief for Coxe Brothers & Company.

Chicago G. W. R. Co. 209 U. S. 108, 120, 52 L. ed. 705, 713, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493. In a suit in equity the government is subjected to the same rules as an individual respecting the burden of proof, quantity and character of evidence, and presumptions of law and fact.

United States v. Stinson, 197 U. S. 200, 49 L. ed. 724, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426; Brent v. Bank of Washington, 10 Pet. 614, 9 L. ed. 554.

The essential idea of monopoly, all authorities agree, is the ability to control prices.

United States v. American Tobacco Co. 221 U. S. 106, 117, 55 L. ed. 663, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 632; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 61, 55 L. ed. 619, 645, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 734; Noyes, Intercorporate Relations, 2d ed. ¶ 711.

A contract is not to be assumed to contemplate unlawful results unless a fair construction requires it upon the established facts.

Cincinnati P. B. S. & P. Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 184, 50 L. ed. 428, 432, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208.

Messrs. John Hampton Barnes and Elihu Root, Jr., filed a brief for appellee, the Girard Trust Company.

Mr. E. V. B. Getty filed a brief for the G. B. Markle Company.

Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause for appellant on final argument.

Messrs. Nicholas W. Hacker, F. W. Wheaton, and Edgar H. Boles argued the cause for appellees on final argu

Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a decree entered in a suit to dissolve the intercorporate relations existing at the time it was commenced in March, 1914, between the defendant corporations, other than Girard Trust Company, for the reason, it is averred, that they were so united that they constituted a combination in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in anthracite coal, and an attempt to monopolize and an actual monopolization of a part of such commerce, in violation of the Anti-trust Act of Congress of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 209, chap. 647, Comp. Stat. § 8820, 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 644); and also for the alleged reason that the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company was transporting over its lines of railway anthracite coal in which it had an interest, in violation of the commodities clause of the Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 585, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat. § 8563, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 359).

[258] It will be necessary to consider only the relations and activities of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, hereinafter designated the Railroad Company, the Lehigh Valley Coal Company, designated the Coal Company, and the Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company, designated the Sales Company.

A condensed history, chiefly admitted, of the organization, stock ownership. and conduct of these three companies, and the application to the facts thus de veloped of fully established principles of law, will be decisive of the case.

The limited area of anthracite-producing territory, its relation to the interstate transportation system and markets of our country, and the various attempts to monopolize and control the great railway tonnage originating therein, have all been so often described in reported cases, that they need not be repeated here in detail.1

It will suffice for our present pur1 United States v. Reading Co. 183 Fed. 427; United States v. Reading Co. 226 Fed. 229; United States v. Delaware & H. Co. | 213 U. S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 220 U. S. 257, 55 L. ed. 458, 31 Sup Ct. Rep. 387; United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 238 U. S. 516, 59 L. ed. 1438, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873; United States v. Reading Co. 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 243 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; United States v. Read ing Co. 253 U. S. 26, 64 L. ed. 760, 40 Sup Ct. Rep. 425.

pose to say that the anthracite-producing territory is very restricted in area, it all being within seven counties of eastern Pennsylvania, with the known deposits underlying only 309,760 acres of land. For trade purposes it is divided into three fields; the northerly is called the Wyoming field, the next southerly the Lehigh or Middle field, and the southerly the Schuylkill field. The lines of the Railroad Company extend into the Wyoming and Lehigh fields, but to only one colliery in the Schuylkill field. Much the greater part of its tonnage is derived from the Wyoming field, and four fifths of it moves in interstate commerce.

The Railroad Company in 1913 owned 1,438 miles of main line and a total trackage of 3,354 miles, its capital [259] stock was $60,600,000, its funded debt was $85,800,000, its total assets had a book value of $182,700,000, but a much greater actual value, and it carried a larger tonnage of anthracite coal than any other railroad in the country,-over 13,000,000 tons in 1913, this being 18.84 per cent of the total 69,000,000 tons shipped over all railroads in that year.

In 1864 the Railroad Company, by merger with a coal company, acquired a small acreage of anthracite-containing land, and thereupon added the mining, shipping, and selling of coal to its duties.

as a carrier.

In 1869 the policy of securing a proportion of the coal trade from each region by the purchase of interests in companies owning lands on or near the