complained of were not within the Sherman Act, inasmuch as the facts alleged and proved showed only a monopoly of manufacture, and not of in terstate trade or commerce;" and Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, decided in 1899, which was "a pro ceeding in equity by the United States against certain manufacturers of iron pipe- to restrain them from carrying out a combination for abol ishing competition in bids, and thus enhancing prices," and in which, dealing with what Mr. Chaplin considers " a situation much broader than the present coal situation, the court held the Sherman Act applicable, and restrained the combination in question as a combination in re straint of interstate commerce." The conclusion which is reached under this head is that "the combination of mine-owners and coal-carrying railroads, commonly known in its present form as the 'Coal Trust,' [is] a com bination and conspiracy illegal, punishable and preventable under the Sherman Act," and that "if representative consumers desire to have these remedies, including the more drastic of them, in voked, to shorten the agony, it will become the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, upon application to him, to apply the remedies." It should be borne in mind that, so far as the right of the public is concerned, the merits of the controversy between mine-owners and mineworkers are immaterial. And one has only to recall the vigorous action of receivers appointed and backed by the Federal Court in the Debs railroad strikes, to be convinced that if a Fed eral Court can act at all in the present case it can act effectively. Whether Mr. Chaplin's argument is sound, only the Supreme Court of the United States can finally determine. But it is clear that the public good demands that the right of the consumer to an adequate supply ofcoal at a reasonable price under the law as it stands at present be deter mined, to the end that, if such right does not now exist, suitable legislation be enacted, which shall put it beyond the power of either mineoperators or mine-workers to deprive the com munity of a commodity which, as society is now constituted, is an absolute necessity. But we be lieve that it will be found that a remedy exists under the present laws.
NOTES. "What is your name," inquired the Justice. "Pete Smith," responded the vagrant. "What occupation? " continued the Court. "Oh, nothing much at present; just circulat ing around," replied the prisoner. "Retired from circulation for thirty days," drily remarked the Court. Upon one occasion the late J. B. Ryan, of Pottsville, Pa., one of the most fearless as well as one of the ablest lawyers in Central Pennsyl vania, was arguing an important case before the Supreme Court of the State and in the course of his argument, something was said about the large number of decisions from the lower court that were affirmed by the higher tribunal. "Why, Mr. Ryan," said one of the Justices, "don't you know that four-fifths of all the deci sions that come before this Court for review are affirmed by us." "Yes, your honor," replied Mr. Ryan, " I knew that, and when you get to affirming the other fifth, we'll abolish the Court." The mystic power of a title is shown by the following story told of Charles P. Harris, of the Rutland, Vermont, bar. At the time of the Tichborne trial, some thirty years or so ago, Mr. Harris, then a young man, was in London. The court room was crowded from day to day — so crowded, indeed, that a Supreme Court judge from this side of the water with whom Mr. Harris was travelling had been unable to obtain admission. The latter was very desirous to be present once at the celebrated trial, and as a last resort wrote a polite note to one of the lead ing counsel in the case, expressing this desire. To the signature to the note were added the let ters " C. E. " — standing for the degree of "Civil Engineer," granted Mr. Harris on grad uation from a technical school, — and the words "United States of America." The note was taken in by a court messenger, who returned and ushered Mr. Harris into the crowded court room, where the "C. E." was courteously wel comed by the famous barrister. But to this day Mr. Harris is in doubt whether the letters which proved an open sesame were interpreted to mean " Court Examiner " of the United States, or to stand for some other office of distinction.
