The company contends that the rule applied in United States v. Erie R. R. Co., 237 U. S. 402; United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 237 U. S. 410, and Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 534,1 is not applicable, because here, unlike those cases, no part of the trains' journey was performed on a track used as part of the main line of the Northern Pacific system. If use of the road as part of a main line were essential in order that operations on it be controlled by the Safety Appliance Act, the requirement would be satisfied in this case by the fact that two independent companies use the road for freight trains under air control and that the passenger trains of another company cross it. "Not only were these [the defendant's] trains exposed to the hazards which that provision was intended to avoid or minimize, but unless their engineers were able readily and quickly to check or control their movements they were a serious menace to the safety of other trains which the statute was equally designed to protect." United States v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., supra. But there is nothing in the act which limits the application of the provision here in question to operations on main line tracks. The requirement that train brakes shall be coupled so as to be under engine control is in terms (32 Stat. 943) applicable to "all trains used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce." It is admitted that this railroad is engaged in interstate commerce; and the cases cited show that transfer trains, like those here involved, are "trains" within the meaning of the act. A moving locomotive with cars attached is without the provision of the act only when it is not a train; as where the operation is that of switching, classifying and assembling cars within railroad yards for the purpose of making

1 That case was decided by this court, April 21, 1919. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case at bar was rendered January 15, 1919.

up trains. Congress has not imposed upon courts applying the act any duty to weigh the dangers incident to particular operations; and we have no occasion to consider the special dangers incident to operating trains under the conditions here presented.

The judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

UNITED STATES v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 1. Argued October 12, 13, 1916; restored to docket for reargument May 21, 1917; reargued November 7, 1917; restored to docket for reargument June 10, 1918; submitted October 7, 1919; restored to docket for oral argument May 17, 1920; reargued October 5, 1920. -Decided December 6, 1920.

Prior to the enactment of the Anti-Trust Law, the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, in combination with the Lehigh Valley Coal Company, a subsidiary created and operated as a mere agency or instrumentality of the Railroad Company, deliberately entered upon the policy of purchasing and leasing the anthracite coal lands in Pennsylvania tributary to its extensive railroad system, and of buying up the stocks of corporations owning such lands, for the purpose of controlling the mining, transportation and sale of the coal to be obtained therefrom and of preventing and suppressing competition, especially in the transportation and sale of such coal in interstate commerce. This policy was continued after the enactment of the Anti-Trust Act, with the result that a practical monopoly was attained of the transportation and sale of the anthracite derived from the lands tributary to the railroad, the amount so transported coming to exceed one-fifth of the entire annual anthracite production of the country. Considering this result, the methods employed in

Counsel for the United States.

254 U.S.

achieving it, and the great volume of production and trade involved, as compared with the restricted area of the whole anthracite territory, held, that the combination effected a restraint of trade or commerce among the States and constituted an attempt to monopolize and an actual monopolization of a part of such trade or commerce in anthracite coal; within the meaning of the first and second sections of the Anti-Trust Act. P. 269.

For the purpose of divesting itself in appearance of interest in the coal transported, the Railroad Company, with the Coal Company, brought about the creation and organization of a Sales Company, whose stock was subscribed for by stockholders of the Railroad Company only, with the aid of a dividend declared by that company for the purpose, and whose management was largely made up of former agents and officials of the Railroad and Coal Companies; the Sales Company, thereupon, in pursuance of the plan, made, in form, an agreement with the Coal Company, for a term of ten years but subject to termination by either party on six months' notice, by which the Coal Company agreed to sell and the Sales Company to buy all coal mined or produced by the Coal Company, at prices mostly fixed at a specified percentage of New York prices, and by which the Coal Company agreed to lease all of its facilities, structures and trestles to the Sales Company, and the Sales Company was inhibited from buying any coal except from the Coal Company and from selling any not so purchased. Held, that the Sales Company was neither an independent buyer nor a free agent, and that the contract being a mere device to evade the commodities clause of the Interstate Commerce Act, and obnoxious also to the Anti-Trust Act, was void. United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 238 U. S. 516. P. 264.

225 Fed. Rep. 399, reversed.

THE case is stated in the opinion. A motion to modify the decree was made and denied at this term. Post, 617.

The Solicitor General for the United States.1

1 At the first and second hearings the case was argued by Mr. Solicitor General Davis and Mr. Assistant to the Attorney General Todd. Mr. Attorney General Gregory and Mr. Arthur W. Machen, Jr., Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were also on the brief. At the third hearing the case was submitted by Mr. Attorney General Palmer and Mr. Solicitor General King, on an additional brief.

Mr. Edgar H. Boles for Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Delaware, Susquehanna & Schuylkill Railroad Company, and the individual defendants.1

Mr. F. W. Wheaton, with whom Mr. Allan McCulloh was on the briefs, for Lehigh Valley Coal Company and Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc.

Mr. Nicholas W. Hacker, with whom Mr. Everett Warren was on the briefs, for Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company.

Mr. E. V. B. Getty filed a brief on behalf of the G. B. Markle Company.

Mr. John Hampton Barnes and Mr. Elihu Root, Jr., filed a brief on behalf of the Girard Trust Company.

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, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209; 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, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 585.

'At the first hearing the case was argued by Mr. John G. Johnson and Mr. Edgar H. Boles. At the second hearing it was argued by Mr. Edgar H. Boles, who also submitted at the third hearing.

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 developed 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 purpose 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 1438 miles of main line and a total trackage of 3354 miles, its capital

1 United States v. Reading Co., 183 Fed. Rep. 427; United States v. Reading Co., 226 Fed. Rep. 229; United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366; United States v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 U.S. 257; United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 238 U. S. 516; United States v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324; United States v. Reading Co., 253 U. S. 26.