24 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



December 25. 1921 



Counsel for the defendants then reached an agreement with govern- 

 ment attorneys whereby the temporary restraining order was to be 

 made a permanent one, on condition that the former might ask Judge 

 McCall to so modify his decision that the defendants might continue 

 to issue monthly production and monthly stock reports, pending final 

 decision from the Supreme Court, to which appeal was to be made 

 in the event he refused to issue such modification. This modified 

 order was sought at Jackson, Tenn., and attorneys for the defendants 

 emphasized that it was not just or equitable that the defendants 

 should be restrained from basic information activities under the open 

 competition plan, pending final settlement of the issues involved, since, 

 if the Supreme Court finally found in their favor, there would be no 

 way in which the loss they had sustained could be made good. Judge 

 McCall, however, held that there was no justification for changing his 

 original decision. 



Appeal to Supreme Court 



Appeal was immediately perfected to the Supreme Court and the 



first hearing was set for October, 1920. Defendants themselves who j 

 were in Washington, as well as counsel therefor, were very much elated V 

 at the discomfiture of government counsel over the broadside of 

 questions fired by the justices and they were confident not only that 

 favorable decision would be forthcoming but that it would be handed J 

 down in a very short time. " 



The first blow that fell was the announcement of the Supreme 

 Court that it desired a re-argument of the case. This was set for 

 the late spring of 1921, but, before adjournment for the smnmer, 

 it was postponed until October, 1921, one year from the date of the 

 first argument on appeal. 



But, even during the hearing of the re-argument, nothing tran.spired 

 which shook in any way the faith of the defendants in final victory. 

 The latter were therefore wholly unprepared for the overwhelming 

 victory awarded the government by this tribunal in declaring that the 

 plan represented a "combination to control production and to increase 

 prices ' ' and that it is ' ' unlawful. ' ' 



Decision Is Crushing Surprise to Members 



of Association 



TTie decision of the Supreme Court, as reported in dispatches 

 from Washington under date of Monday, Dec. 19, in which the 

 government is a^varded complete victory in its equity suit against 

 the members of the open competition plan of the American Hard- 

 wood Manufacturers' Association, has come as one of the most 

 crushing blows ever dealt the hardwood lumber industry, and as 

 something of a personal shock to members and ofHcials of this 

 organization, whether members of the open competition plan or 

 not. 



It has been so confidently expected that the verdict of the highest 

 tribunal in the United States would be in favor of the lumbermen, 

 and the character of the decision proved a big disappointment, 

 as did the language used in rendering the decision. It has been 

 the subject of conversation wherever two or more lumbermen 

 have been gathered together and it is putting it but mildly to 

 say that all are agreed that it is exremely unfortunate for the 

 hardwood lumber industry as well as for all business in the 

 United States. 



The decision has put officials and members of the association 

 completely "in the air" regarding plana for the future. Lumber- 

 men here, including R. M. Carrier, president of the A. H. M. A., 

 who is confined to his rooms in the Hotel Gayoso where he is 

 suffering from a painful injury recently received in his hand at 

 his mill at Sardis, Miss.; John M. Pritchard, secretary-manager; 

 James E. Stark, chairman of the executive committee, and other 

 members of the latter, are reticent about expressing any opinion 

 on the ruling until the full text is received from Washington and 

 until the full purport of the major opinion of the Supreme Court 

 is more thoroughly understood. Advices from L. C. Boyle, general 

 counsel for the association and the chief representative of the 

 co-defendants in the long drawn out litigation, as to the eflect 

 of the decision and the rights and privileges of members of the 

 organization under the ruling, are also awaited before any plans 

 will be formulated for the future. 



Carrier Withholds Comment 

 "It seems to me," said President Carrier, when approached 

 by the representative of the HARDWOOD RECORD, "that 

 it is necessary to await the full text of the decision and also 

 advices from counsel before taking any steps whatever as to the 

 future plans of the association. Christmas is very close at hand and 

 it is going to be difficult to get Eastern members of the executive 

 committee to come to Memphis in the immediate future. I am 

 therefore of the opinion that no meeting of the executive board 

 will be held until some time after the first of the year and noth- 

 ing of a formal nature will be done until the gentlemen serving 

 on the executive board can be brought together." 



James E. Stark, chairman of the executive committee, deplored 

 the decision, but emphasized the necessity of ^vaiting on further 

 information before making extended comment. He thoroughly 

 agreed with the position taken by President Carrier. The same 

 is true of John W. McClure. S. M. Nickey and R. L. Jurden, the 

 other local members of the executive committee. The two eastern 

 members are E. O. Robinson, of Cincinnati, and M. W. Stark, 

 of the American Column & Lumber Company. Up to a late 

 hour Tuesday afternoon, there had been no expression from these 

 gentlemen. 



Co-defendants, representing local members of the association 

 identified with the open competition plan, were so stunned by 

 the decision that they could scarcely bring themselves to believe 

 that the Supreme Court had declared the open competition "a 

 combination to restrain production and to advance prices" and 

 had pronounced it "unlawful." W. H. Dick, vice-president of the 

 Tallahatchie Lumber Company and president of the Southern Al- 

 luvial Land Association, said he regarded the decision as most 

 unfortunate not only for the lumber industry but for all industries 

 in the United States. 



Association May Function Still 



John M. Pritchard, secretary-manager, and other officials, 

 dwelt with considerable emphasis on the fact that the injunction 

 granted by Judge McCall, of the lower court and re-affirmed by 

 the decision of the Supreme Court, does not lie against the 

 American Hardwood Manufacturers' Association, per se, and he 

 and other officials of this organization are hopeful that it may 

 be possible, in the light of the formal text of the opinion, for 

 the association to proceed with the gathering of information 

 regarding stocks and production just as was done before the open 

 competition plan was inaugurated by this association. It is known 

 that there are other activities which may be engaged in without 

 running counter to the Sherman Law but the fact that .ill of the 

 members of the open competition plan, forming the bulk of the 

 membership of the association, are individually restrained from 

 reporting information regarding stocks and production makes it 

 uncertain what may be done in this direction. 



The decision is regarded as taking away from representatives 

 of the hardwood lumber industry the right to compile and dis- 

 tribute the basic facts necessary to an intelligent conduct of 

 their business, but even so, as James E. Stark expressed it, "the 

 trade are glad to have the decision out of the way and to know 

 something of where they stand in the matter of their rights^" 



So far as its effect on the hardwood situation is concerned, it 

 is pointed out by Mr. Stark and others that this is practically 



