194 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[March i, 1906. 



THE OBITUARY RECORD. 



DECISION AGAINST A TIRE POOL. 



GEORGE B. THOMSON, 



GEORGE B. THOMSON, who was for many years gen- 

 eral agent of the Goodyear Rubber Co., in vSt. Louis, 

 died at his home in that city on January 27, after a linger- 

 ing illness. Mr. Thomson had not been in good health for 

 a number of years and had largely relinquished the details of 

 his business position to his assistant. 



Mr. Thomson was born in Baltimore, Maryland, February 



6, 1839. It is said 

 that he decided early 

 in life upon the rub- 

 ber goods trade as a 

 basis of his liusiness 

 career. At the be- 

 ginning of the civil 

 war he joined the 

 Confederate army, 

 serving on the staff 

 of General Richard 

 ("Dick ") Taylor. 

 He served through- 

 out the war, making 

 a good record as a 

 soldier. He then set- 

 tled in St. Louis, 

 and engaged in the 

 rubber goods busi- 

 ness, as agent and 

 manager of the St. Louis branch of H. G. Norton & Co., an 

 important Easton jobbing house. 



In 1872 the Goodyear Rubber Co. (New York) took over 

 the business of H. G. Norton & Co., in St. Louis and else- 

 where, and continued Mr. Thomson in his position. Later, 

 when the Goodyear company opened a branch house at Kan-, 

 sas City, this also was placed in charge of Mr. Thomson. 



Mr. Thomson became prominently identified with many 

 local enterprises. He was one of the incorporators ol the 

 Mercantile Club and thereafter always an active member. It 

 was at his suggestion that the St. Louis natatorium was 

 built — the first institution of the kind in St. Louis. He was 

 also for many years a trustee of the St. Louis College of Phy- 

 sicians and Surgeons. He was clear headed, active in mind 

 and body, with very decided opinions, but in no degree un- 

 willing to change them if he could see the reason why. He 

 was a "Confederate," first, last, and all the time; but a 

 good fellow, and those who were associated with him all the 

 forty years of his rubber business life will miss his genial 

 greeting. 



Funeral services were conducted at the late home of Mr. 

 Thomson on January 28, by the Rev. Dr. M. Rhodes, pastor 

 of St. Marks English Evangelical Luthern Church. The bodA- 

 was cremated in accordance with Mr. Thomson's wishes. 

 Mr. Thomson left no immediate relatives. The funeral was 

 attended by Miss Alice Forney, a first cousin. 



" TijELLlNHAs para Borracha " (the tin cups for gathering 

 rubber used on the Amazon) are advertised by an enterpris- 

 ing Pard tinsmith at largely reduced rates — the first hopeful 

 indication for cheaper rubber from that region for many, 

 many months. 



A DECISION of unusual importance is that rendered by 

 ■^-^ Judge Sanborn, in the United States circuit court for 

 the eastern district of Wisconsin, in the suit of The Rubber 

 Tire Wheel Co. v. The Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., to re- 

 cover royalties for tires made under United States patent No. 

 554,675, issued to A. W. Grant for solid rubber tires. 



The defenses were that the license contract securing the 

 royalties is denounced as illegal by the Sherman " anti-trust 

 act, " making void every contract, combination in the form 

 of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or 

 commerce, among the several states. Also that the royalty 

 contract was invalid under the Wisconsin statute of 1898, 

 prohibiting corporations organized under Wisconsin laws 

 from entering into any combination, conspiracy, trust, pool, 

 agreement, or contract intended to restrain or prevent com- 

 petition in the supply or price of any article constituting a 

 subject of trade or commerce in Wi.sconsin. Defendant is a 

 Wisconsin corporation. 



In reply to these defenses, the plaintiff argued that they 

 are immaterial, because the articles in question are patented, 

 and the royalties claimed are under a patent monopoly ; 

 hence the license came under neither the federal act nor the 

 Wisconsin statute. 



In rebuttal the defendants pleaded that the agreements be- 

 tween the parties to the suit were intended to form a combi- 

 nation in restraint of trade ; that the patent referred to was 

 believed by all the parties to the agreement to be void ; the 

 patent had been so adjudged by the United States circuit 

 court of appeals in the Cincinnati district, and the supreme 

 court had refused to review that decision ; that the patent 

 was resorted to as a pretext merely to evade the anti trust 

 laws, and the contracts were meant only to create an unlaw- 

 ful combination, wherebj- contract prices were raised bej-ond 

 the natural and legitimate market prices. 



The decision of Judge Sanborn, after a review of the terms 

 of the agreements, and of the like agreements made by the 

 owners of the Grant patent with other rubber tire manufac- 

 turers, says : "These contracts most clearlj- make a combina- 

 tion within the Sherman act, if the subject matter be within 

 that act. That is the only question in the case " The long 

 extended litigation over the Grant tire patent [reported in 

 Thk Indi.\ Rubber W^orld at various times] is then review- 

 ed. There is no implication in the decision that, in the pe- 

 culiar circumstances of the case, all parties to the agreements 

 ma}' not, in good faith, have believed that the validity of the 

 Grant patent would ultimately be sustained. One result of 

 the litigation to date, however, is that in some jurisdic- 

 tions the validity of the Grant patent is now recognized, 

 which in others it is not. The sum of the decision in brief 

 is that — 



In two important ways the provisions of these contracts attempt 

 to secure results not contained within or flowing from the lawful 

 monopoly of the patent. First, they raise and maintain prices, 

 and restrict trade and interstate commerce, in Michigan, Ohio, 

 Kentucky, and Tennessee, where the patent monopoly has no prac 

 tical existence ; second, they create a fund for crushing competi- 

 tion in interstate commerce throughout the whole country, as well 

 in the sixth circuit as elsewhere, and not only competition in the 

 Grant tires between outside manufacturers and those who are in the 

 combination, but competition of all other rubber tires against the 

 Grant tire. 



