Decatur Daily Democrat, Volume 9, Number 284, Decatur, Adams County, 5 December 1911 — Page 6

SAGE OF ” IE PRESIDENT iafl Gbampiuis fte Antitrust Statute. 4 REMEDIES SUGGESTED. V Repeal or Amendment, but Supmental Legislation Needed —The jj jcco Trust Decision an Effective &—Federal Incorporation Recom--7I led and a Federal Corporation mission Proposed—The Test of isonableness.” e Senate and House of Repreitives: message is the first of several I shall send to congress during terval between the opening of iular session and its adjourn tor the Christmas holidays. The t of information to be commu--1 as to the operations of the ment, the number of important ts calling for comment by the ive and the transmission to conyf exhaustive reports of special ssions make it impossible to inin one message of a reasonable a discussion of the topics that to be brought to the attention national legislature at its first r session. \nti-trust Law—The Supreme Court Decisions. ay last the supreme court handm decisions in the suits in equiigljt by the United States to enie/ further maintenance of the rd Oil trust and of the AmeriIbaceo trust and to secure their TWBIJon. The decisions are epoch and serve to advise the busiworld authoritatively of the , , and operation of the anti-trust ,1890. The decisions do not depart in any substantial way from the previous decisions of the court in construing and applying this important statute, but they clarify those decisions by further defining the already admitted exceptions to the literal con struction of the act. By the decrees they furnish a useful precedent as to the proper method of dealing with the capital and property of illegal trusts. These decisions suggest the need and wisdom of additional or supplemental I legislation to make it easier for the entire business community to square ' with the rule of action and legalitybus finally established and to pre--1 serve the benefit, freedom and spur of reasonable competition without loss of real efficiency or progress. No Change In the Rule cf Decision, I Merely In Its Form of Expression. The statute in its first section declares to be Illegal “every -contract. I combination in the form of trust or ; otherwise or conspiracy in restraint of.trade or commerce iituo :.g Hie ■ -v---era.i states or with foreign nr.s" and in the second declares guilty of a nWsdemeanor “every person who shall t jkiopolize or attempt to mouopo ' * t/.-omhine or conspire with any other •son to monopolize any part of the Bde dr commerce of the several states jMwith foreign nations.” two enriv cases, where the statute Jrs invoked to enjoin a transportafen rate agreement between iutertato railroad companies, it was held hat it was no defense to show that he agreement as to rates complained | jf was reasonable at common la w. be'tausc it was said that the statute was directed against all contracts and comin restraint of trade, whether reasonable at common law or not. It ' was plain from the record, however, that the contracts complained of In 1 those cases would not have been deem- ' W reasonable at common law. In sub ’ Skpient cases the court said that the should be given a reasonable instruction and refused to include Kthin its Inhibition certain contracSjal restraints of trade which it de nominated as Incidental or as indirect. * These cases of restrant of trade that |e court excepted from the operation ■ the statute were instances which I common law would have been callU reasonable. In the Standard Oil ,d tobacco eases, therefore, the court icrely adopted the tests of the comnon law and In defining exceptions to ■ he literal application of the statute ly substituted for the test of being ; /J i*ldeutal or indirect that of being ! (•ear,enable, and this without varying Mn tlie slightest the actual scope and effect of the statute. In other words. I dl the cases under the statute which Lave now been decided would have Ven decided the same way if the irt had originally accepted in its instruction the rule at common law. It has been said that the court by Inducing into the construction of the ite common law distinctions has A iascu)ated it. This is obviously un- , me. By its judgment every contract pad combination in restraint of inter ite trade made with the purpose or ecessary effect of controlling prices y stifling competition or of establish ig in whole or in part a monopoly of ,uch trade is condemned by the stat n+e. The most extreme critics cannot | Instance a case that ought to be condemned under the statute which is not brought within its terms as thus con- ■ At rued. ■* < The suggestion is also made that the supreme court by its decision in the last two cases has committed to the • ourt the undefined and unlimited dis- I retion to determine whether a case of restraint of trade is within the terms

of the statute. This is wholly untrue. A reasonable restraint of trade at common law is well understood and is clearly defined. It does not rest in the I discretion of the court. It must be limited to accomplish the purpose of a lawful main contract to which in order that 14 shall be enforceable at all it must be incidental. If it exceed the needs of that contract it is void. The test of reasonableness was never i applied by the court at coinman law to contracts or combinations or coni spiracles in restraint of trade whose purpose was or whose necessary effect j would be to stifle competition, to con- | trol prices or establish monopolies. | The courts never assumed power to | I say that such contracts or combinaI tions or conspiracies might be lawful ; if the parties to them were only mod- [ erate in the use of the power thus se- | cured and did not exact from the pub- , lie too great and exorbitant prices. It i is true that many theorists and others I engaged in business violating the statj ute have hoped that some such line could be drawn by courts, but no court I of authority has ever attempted it. Certainly there is nothing in the decisions of the latest two cases from which such a dangerous theory of judicial discretion in enforcing this statute can derive the slightest sanction. Force and Effectiveness of Statute a Matter of Growth. We have been twenty-one years making this statute effective for the purposes for which it was enacted. The Knight case was discouraging and seemed to remit to the states the whole available power to attack and suppress the evils of the trusts. Slowly, however, the error of that judgment was corrected, and only in the last three or four years has the heavy hand of the law’been laid upon the great Illegal combinations that have exercised such an absolute dominion over many of our I industries. Criminal prosecutions have been brought, and a number are pending, but juries have felt averse to convicting for Jail sentences and judges have been most reluctant to impose such sentences on men of respectable standing in society whose offense has been regarded as merely statutory. Still, as the offense becomes better understood and the committing of it partakes more of studied and deliberate defiance of the law we can be confident that juries will convict individuals and that jail sentences will be imposed. The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution. In the Standard Oil case the supreme and circuit courts found the combination to be a monopoly of the interstate business of refining, transporting and marketing petroleum and its products, effected and maintained through thir-ty-seven different corporations, the | stock of which was held by a New Jer- | sey company. It in effect commanded the dissolution of this combination, directed the transfer and pro rata distribution by the New Jersey company of the stock held by it in the thirty-seven corporations to and among its stockholders. and the corporations and individual defendants were enjoined from | conspiring or combining to restore j I such monopoly, and all agreements be : tween the subsidiary corporations tend- ! ing to produce or bring about further violations of the act were enjoined. In the tobacco case the court found i that the individual defendants, twen- ■ I ty-nine in number, had been engaged in a successful effort to acquire com--1 plete dominion over the manufacture. , sale and distribution of tobacco in this I j country and abroad and that this had j I been done by combinations made with ' a purpose and effect to stifle comped- i , tion, control prices and establish a I monopoly, not only in the manufacture of tobacco, but also of tin foil and lie- , ; orice used in its manufacture and of I ' its products of cigars, cigarettes and ! snuffs. The tobacco suit presented a | j far more complicated and difficult ease I ' than the Standard Oil suit for a decree ■ which would effectuate the will of the i court and end the violation of the statute. There was here no single hold- | ing company, as in the case of the , Standard Oil trust. The main company was the American Tobacco company, a manufacturing, selling and holding company. The plan adopted to destroy the combination and restore competition involved the redivision of the capital and plants of the whole trust between some of rhe companies con stituting the trust and new companier organized for the purposes of the de- ' eree and made parties to it and num- I boring, new anfl old fourteen. Situation After Readjustment. The American Tobacco company (old), readjusted capital $02,000,000; I the Liggett & Meyers Tobacco company j (new), capital $67,000,000; the P. Lorilinrrl company (new), capital $47,000,- [ 000. and the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco company (old), capital $7,525,000. are ■ chiefly engaged in the manufacture , and sale of chewing and smoking to- I bacco and cigars The former one tin 1 . foil company is divided into two, one I l of $825,000 capital and the other of , . $400,000. The one snuff company is divided into three companies, one with i a capital of $15,000,000. another with a . I capital of $8,000,000 and a third with , I a capital of $8,000,000. The licorice I i companies are two, one with a capital | of $5,758,300 and another with a capital of $2,000,000. There is also the Riitish-American Tobacco company, a British corporation, doing business abroad with a capital of $26,090,000, the Porto Rican Tobacco company. [ with a capital of $1,800,000. and the corporation of United Cigar Stores. ' with a capital of $9,000,000. Under this arrangement each of the ! different kinds of business will be dis tributed between two or more compa nies with a division of the prominent .brands in the same tobacco products, so as to* make competition not only j possible, but necessary. Thus th ■ . ! smoking tobacco business of the coun I ♦rv is divided so that the present In

dependent companies have 21.39 per cent, while the American Tobacco company will have 33.08 per cent, the Liggett & Meyers 20.05 per cent, the Lorillard company 22.82 per cent and the Reynolds company 2.66 per cent. The stock of the other thirteen companies, both preferred and common, has been taken from the defendant American Tobacco company and has been distributed among its stockholders. All covenants restricting competition have been declared null and further performance of them has been enjoined. The preferred stock of the different companies has now been given voting | power which was denied it under the I old organization. The ratio of the preferred stock to the common was as 78 to 40. This constitutes a very decided change in the character of the owner- | ship and control of each company. In the original suit there were twen- I ty-niue defendants, who were charged with being the conspirators through ] whom the illegal combination acquired : and exercised its unlawful dominion. ; : Under the decree these defendants will hold amounts of stock in the various | distributee companies ranging from 41 1 per cent as a maximum to 28)4 per cent as a minimum, except in the case of ene small company, the Porto Rican Tobacco company, in which they will hold 45 per cent. The twenty-nine individual defendants are enjoined for three years from buying any stock except from each other, and the group is thus prevented from extending its con- I trol during that period. All parties to i the suit and the new companies who • are made parties are enjoined perpet- I ually from in any way effecting any combination between any of the companies in violation of the statute by way of resumption of the old trust. Each of the fourteen companies is enjoined from acquiring stock in any of I the others. All these companies are enjoined from having common direc- . tors or officers, or common buying or selling agents, or common offices, or ■ lending money to each other. Size of New Companies. Objection was made by certain in- j dependent tobacco companies that this ! settlement was unjust because it left I companies with .very large capital in active business and that the settlement that would be effective to put all on an equality would be a division of the capital and plant of the trust into small fractions in amount more nearly equal to that of each of the independent companies. This contention results from a misunderstanding of the anti-trust law and its purpose. It is not intended thereby to prevent the accumulation of large capital in busi ness enterprises in which such a combination can secure reduced cost of production, sale and distribution. It is directed against such an aggrega- ' tion of capital only when its purpose I is that of stifling competition, enhancing or controlling prices and establishing a monopoly. If we shall have by the decree defeated these purposes and restored competition between the large units into which the capital and | plant have been divided we shall have I accomplished the useful purpose of I 1 the statute. Confiscation Not the Purpose of the Statute. It is not the purpose of the statute to confiscate the property and capital of the offending trusts. Methods of ■ punishment by fine or imprisonment ; of the individual offenders, by fine of ■ the corporation or by forfeiture of its J j goods in transportation are provided. ! | but the proceeding in equity is a spei cific remedy to stop the operation of ■ i the trust by injunction and prevent | the future use of the plant and capital in violation of the statute. Effectiveness of Decree. I venture to say that not in the hisi tory of American law has a decree ; ’ more effective for such a purpose been | entered by a court than that against the tobacco trust. As Circuit Judge Noyes said in his judgment approving the decree: “The extent to which it has been : necessary to tear apart this combination and force it into new forms with the attendant burdens ought to demon strate that the fe< i anti-trust statute is a drastic statute which accomplishes ; effective results, which so long as it stands on the statute books must be , obeyed and which cannot be disobeyed without incurring farreaching penalties. And, on the other hand, the successful reconstruction of this or I ganizatlon should teach that the effect : of enforcing this statute is not to de. stroy, but to reconstruct; not to demolish, but. to recreate in accordance with the conditions which the congress ■ has declared shall exist among the people of the United States. ’’ Common Stock Ownership. It has been the present pro rata and common ownership in ' all these companies by former stock t holders of the trust would insure a j continuance of the same old single control of nil the companies into which | the trust has by decree been dislntei grated. This is erroneous and is based - upon the assumed inefficacy and innocuousness of judicial injunctions. The ; companies are enjoined from co-opera- ' tion or combination; they have differ ent managers, directors, purchasing and sales agents. If all or many of the numerous stockholders, reaching into the thousands, attempt to secure concerted action of the companies with a view to the control of the market their number is so large that such an attempt could not well be concealed, and its prime movers and all its participants would be at once subject to contempt proceedings and imprisonment of a summary character. The immedi ate result of’the present situation will i necessarily be activity by all the com j panles under different managers, and I then competition must follow or there ! will be activity by one company and stagnation by another. Only a short time will inevitably lead to a change ' i

in -wnership of the stock, as all opportunity for continued co-operation must disappear. Those critics who speak of this disintegration in the trust as a mere change of garments have not given consideration to the inevitable working of the decree and understand little the personal danger of attempting to evade or set at naught the solemn injunction of a court whose object is made plain by the decree and whose inhibitions are set forth with a detail and comprehensiveness unexampled in the history of equity jurisprudence. Voluntary Reorganizations cf Other Trusts at Hand. The effect of these two decisions has led to decrees dissolving the combina- { | tion of manufacturers of electric j ■ lamps, a southern wholesale grocers' ■ I association, an interlocutory decree against the powder trust, with direc- ■ Hons by the circuit court compelling dissolution, and other combinations of a similar history are now negotiating with the department of justice looking to a disintegration by decree and re- , organization in accordance with law It seems possible to bring about these reorganizations without general business disturbance. Movement For Repeal of the Antitrust Law. But now that the anti-trust act is seen to be effective for the accomplishment of the purpose of its enactment we are met by a cry from many different quarters for its repeal. It is said to be obstructive of business progress, to be an attempt to restore old fashioned methods of destructive competition between small units and to make Impossible those useful combinations of capital and the reduction of the cost of production that are essential to continued prosperity and normal growth. In the recent decisions the supreme court makes clear that there is nothing in the statute which condemns ' combinations of capital or mere bigness of plant organized to secure econ omy in production and a reduction of its cost. It is only when the purpose or necessary effect of the organization j and maintenance of the combination or the aggregation of Immense size are the stifling of competition, actual and potential, and the enhancing of prices and establishing a monopoly that the statute is violated. Mere size is no sin against the law. The merging of two or more business plants necessarily eliminates competition between the units thus combined, but this elimination is in contravention of the statute only when the combination is made for purpose of ending this particular competition in order to secure control of and enhance prices and create a monopoly. Lack of Definiteness In the Statute. The complaint is made of the statute that it is not sufficiently definite in its description of that which is forbidden to enable business men to avoid its violation. The suggestion is that we may have a combination of two corporations which may run on for years and that subsequently the attorney general may conclude that it was a violation of the statute and that which was supposed by the combiners to be innocent then turns out to be a combination in violation of the statute Tlie answer to this hypothetical case is that when men attempt to amass ' such stupendous capital as will enable j them to suppress competition, control j prices and establish a monopoly they I know the purpose of their acts. Men | do not do such a thing without having i < it clearly in mind. If what they do is merely for the purpose of reducing the cost of production, without the thougli* of s-.’pprossing competition by use of th--of the plant they are creating. ; then they cannot be convicted at the time the union is made, nor can they I be convicted later unless it happen that later on they conclude to sup press competition and take the usual methods for doing so and thus estabI llsh for themselves a monopoly. They ! can in such a case hardly complain it the motive which subsequently is disclosed is attributed by the court to the original combination. New Remedies Suggested. Much is said of the repeal of this statute and of construcuve legislation intended to accomplish the purpose and blaze a clear path for honest merchants and business men to follow. It ma.i be that such a plan will bo evolved, but I submit that the discussions which have been brought out in recent days by the fear of the con- | liuued execution of the anti trust lav,' have produced nothing but glittering generalities and have offered no line f of distinction or rule of action as defl- > ; nite and as clear as that which tlie supreme court itself lays down in enforcing the statute. Supplemental Legislation Needed, Not Repeal or Amendment. I see no objection, and indeed I can see decided advantages. In the enactment of a law which shall describe and denounce methods of competition which are unfair and are badges of the unlawful purpose denounced in the. anti-trust law. The attempt and purpose to suppress a competitor by underselling him at a price so unprofitable as to drive him out of business or the making of exclusive contracts with customers under which they are required to give up association with oth er manufacturers and numerous kindred methods for stifling competition and effecting monopoly should bode scribed with sufficient accuracy In n criminal statute on the one band to enable tlie government to shorten Its task by prosecuting single misdemeanors Instead of an entire conspiracy and on the other hand to serve the purpose of pointing out more in detail to the business community what must be avoided. Federal Incorporation Recommended. In a special message to congress on Jan. 7, 1910, I ventured to point out I

the disturbance to business that would probably attend the dissolution of these offending trusts. I said: “But such an investigation and possible prosecution of corporations whose prosperity or destruction affects the comfort not only of stockholders, but of millions of wage earners, employees and associated tradesmen, must necessarily tend to disturb the confidence i of the business community, to dry up the now flowing sources of capital | ' from its places of hoarding and pro- | i duce a halt in our present prosperity | j that will cause suffering and strained . j circumstances among the innocent | many for the faults of the guilty few. ; The question which I wish in this I message to bring clearly to the con- i sideration and discussion of congress is whether, in order to avoid such a , possible business danger, something 1 cannot be done by which these busi- j ness combinations may be offered a means, without great financial disturbance. of changing the character. I I organization and extent of their busi . ness into one within the lines of the I law under federal control and super 1 vision, securing compliance with the | anti-trust statute. “Generally in the industrial combinn- ■ tions called ‘trusts’ the principal busi ness is the sale of goods in many states ! and in foreign markets—in other words, ( the Interstate and foreign business far I exceeds the business done in any one state. This fact will justify the fed- . eral government in granting a federal > i charter to such a combination to make j and sell in interstate and foreign com- j merce the products of useful manufacture under such limitations as will secure a compliance with the anti-trust law. It is possible so to frame a statute that, while it offers protection to a federal company against harmful, vex ations and unnecessary invasion by the I states, it shall subject it to reasonable taxation and control by the states with respect to Its purely local busi 1 ness. * * * "Corporations organized under this act should be prohibited from acquir--1 ing and holding stock in other corporations (except for special reasons, upon approval by the proper federal authority), thus avoiding the creation under national auspices of the holding company with subordinate corporations in different states, which has been such an effective agency in the creation of tlie great trusts and monopolies. “If the prohibition of the anti-trust act against combinations in restraint of trade is to be effectively enforced it is essential that the national government shall provide for the creation of | national corporations to carry on a legitimate business throughout the Unit- | ed States. The conflicting laws of the different states of the Union with respect to foreign corporations make it difficult if not impossible, for one corporation to comply with their require-1 ments so as to carry on business in a ! number of different states.” I renew the recommendation of the i enactment of a general law providing I for the voluntary formation of cor- ' potations to engage in trade and com merce among the states and with for eign nations. Every argument which | was then advanced for such a law and | every explanation which was at tin t time offered to possible objections has been confirmed by our experience since the enforcement of the anti-trust statute has resulted in the actual dissolution of active commercial organizations. It is even more manifest now than j it was then that the denunciation of i conspiracies in restraint of trade ' should not and doos not mean the denial of organizations large enough t' be intrusted with our interstate and foreign trade. It has been made more clear now than it was then that a purely negative statute like the anti- ; trust law may well be supplemented by specific provisions for the building up and regulation of legitimate national and foreign commerce. Government Administrative Experts Needed to Aid Courts In Trust Dissolutions. The drafting of the decrees in the dissolution of the present trusts, with a view to their reorganization into legitimate corporations, has made it especially apparent that the courts are not provided with the administrative machinery to make the necessary in quiries preparatory to reorganization or to pursue such inquiries, and they should be empowered to invoke the aid of the bureau us vuipurations in determining the suitable reorganization of the disintegrated parts. The circuit court and the attorney general were greatly aided in framing the decree in the tobacco trust dissolution by an expert from the bureau of corporations. Fedsral Corporation Ccmminion Proposed. 1 do not set forth lu detail the terms and sections of a statute which might supply the constructive legislation permitting and aiding the formation of | combinations of capital into federal corporations. They should be subject to rigid rules as to their organization and procedure, including effective publicity. and to the closest supervision as to the issue of stock and bonds by an executive bureau or commission in the department of commerce and labor, to which in times of doubt they might well submit their proposed plans for ; future business. It must be distinctly I understood that incorporation under n federal law could not exempt the com- ' pany thus formed and its incorporators and managers from prosecution under the anti-trust law for subsequent illegal conduct, but the publicity of its procedure and the opportunity for frequent consultation with the bureau or commission in charge of the incorporation as to the legitimate purpose of its transactions would offer it as great security against successful prosecutions

for violations of the law as would be practical or wise. Such a bureau or commission nugnt well be invested also with the duty already referred to of aiding courts in the dissolution and recreation of trusts within the law. It should be an executive tribunal of the dignity and power of the comptroller of the currency or the interstate commerce commission, which now exercises supervisory power over important classes of | corporations under federal regulation. | The drafting of such a federal in- , corporation law would offer ample op- , portunity to prevent many manifest evils in corporate management today. Including irresponsibility of control in the hands of the few who are not the real owners. Incorporation Voluntary. I recommend that the federal charters thus to shall be voluntary, at least until experience justifies mandatory provisions. The benefit to j be derived from tlie operation of great i businesses under the protection of such . a charter would attract all who are anxious to keep within the lines of the law. Other large combinations that | tail to take advantage of the federal incorporation will not have a right to complain if their failure is ascribed to unwillingness to submit their transac-, tions to the careful official scrutiny. | competent supervision and publicity • attendant upon the enjoyment of such a charter. Only Supplemental Legislation Needed. The opportunity thus suggested for i federal incorporation, it seems to me,; is suitable constructive legislation needed to facilitate the squaring of | i great industrial enterprises to the rule I of action laid down by the anti-trust I I law. This statute as construed by the | supreme court must continue to be the line of distinction for legitimate busi-; ness. It must be enforced unless we are to banish individualism from all business and reduce it to one common system of regulation or control of prices like that which now prevails with respect to public utilities and, which when applied to all business. would be a long step toward state socialism. Importance of the Anti-trust Act. The anti-trust act is the expression I of the effort of a freedom loving peo- j pie to preserve equality of opportunity. It Is the result of tlie confident determination of such a people to maintain their future growth by preserving uncontrolled and unrestricted the enterprise of the individual, bis Industry, his Ingenuity, his Intelligence and his I independent courage. For twenty years or more this statute has been upon the statute book. All knew its general purpose and approved. Many of its violators were cynical over its assumed impotence. It seemed Impossible of enforcement. ! Slowly the mills of the courts ground. , and only gradually did the majesty of the law assert itself. Many of its | statesmen-authors died before it be-1 | came a living force, and thev anil oth- ; ers saw the evil grow which they had ■ hoped to destroy. Now its efficacy is seen; now its power is heavy: now its ; object is near achievement. Now we i hoar the call for its repeal on the plea that it interferes with business prosperity. and we are advised in mo ■’ general terms bow by some other stat ute and in some other way the evil we are just stamping out ean be cured if we only abandon this work of twenty years and try another experiment for another term of years. j It is said that the act has not done good. .Can this be said in the face of tlie effect of the Northern Securities decree? That decree was in no wa;.’ so drastic or inhibitive in detail as either tlie Standard Oil decree or the tobacco det fee. But did it not stop for all time the then powerful movement toward the control of all the railroads of the country in a single hand? Such a one man power could not have been a healthful influence in the republic, even t .ongh exercised under the general supervision of nn interstate commission. Do we desire to make such ruthless combinations and monopolies lawful? When all energies are directed, not toward the reduction of the cost of production for the public benefit by a healthful competition, but toward new ways and means for making permanent in a few hands the absolute control of the conditions and prices prevailing In the whole field of industry , then individual enterprise and effort will be paralyzed end the spirit cf commercial freedom will be dead. WM. 11. TAFT. The White House, Dec. 5, 1911. Got a Free Lecture. The agent for a handsomely illustrated book to be sold on long time credit—a feast to tlie intellect and nn adornment to any library- leaned against the side of the house, caught his breath, clinched his fist and looked skyward. “What’s the mauer?” asked a policeman. “I’ve met the meanest man,” he an swered. “I’ve heard of him. and I’ve read about him in the papers, but I never expected to meet him face tc face.” 5 “Where is he?” “Up in that building.” “How do you know he’s the meanest j man?” “By the way he acted. I showed him this work of art. lectured on ii j for half an hour, pointed out the en ' gravings. and when I hinted it would be a good thing to order what do yot think he siild?” “I don’t know.” “He said he never bought books he didn’t have to. He just waited sot some idiot of an agent to come alonj and tell him all that was In ’em and turn over the leaves while he looked nt the pictures. Nice, isn’t it?”—Ep worth Herald.

OBITUARY. Norman Cornelius Case was born May 1, 1854, in Dunkirk, New York, and died November 30, 1911, at the age of 57 years, 6 months and 29 days. He was married to Georgia Barnes at Dunkirk. N. Y„ in 1874. To them were born three children. He was again married to Jennie BurkI head of Decatur, Ind., January 24, ! 1884, and to them three children were I born. He is survived by his wife, Mrs. Jennie S. Case, three sons and three daughters —Charles M. Case, of Decatur, Ind.; John L. Case, Decatur, Ind.; Mrs, B. W. Lewis, Dunkirk, N. Y.; Ora L. Case. Chicago. 111.: Mrs. C. Jensen and Mrs. H. J. Chidley, of Chicago. He was a member of the Methodist Episcopal church from boyhood. He was active in Y. M. C. A. at Dunkirk, New York. He had been a member of the Ben Hur lodge about sis- ! teen years. He was an employee of ■ the Chicago & Erie railroad company from 1882 until 1906. From November 14, 1906. until his death November 30, 1911. he was confined in the i hospital at Richmond. Ind. The Ben Hur lodge of Richmond took charge ‘ of the funeral, with Rev. E. Gadscliff {of the M. E. church officiating. InterI ment at Earlham cemetery. PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will offer at public sale at his residence, 3 miles west of j Decatur, and 1% miles east of Preble, I known as the David Liby farm, on , Wednesday, December 13, 1911, be- ■ ginning at 10 o’clock, a. m., the following property, to-wit: Three Head ! of Horses- One gray mare. 8 years old, weight 1200 tbs., in foal; 1 spring i colt, 8 months old; 1 horse, 7 years ( old, sound, work in all harness. Four | Head of Cattle: One will be fresh in March,l will be fresh in June. 2 Jeri sey cows. Hogs: Three brood sows, ; 1 will farrow in January, 2 not bred; ; 7 shoats, will weigh 50 lbs. each; 5 ' fat hogs, will weigh 225 tbs. each; sheep, ten heaii of breeding ewes. Farming Implements: One springtooth harrow, spike-tooth harrow, breaking plow, single shovel plow, 1horse corn cutter, top buggy, set of harness, farm wagon, cultivator, corn fodder in field, 8 bushels wdnter apples, 2 cream separators, 2 log chains, mud boat, 24 Leghorn hens and many other articles too numerous to men- • tion. Terms —All amounts of $5.00 and under, cash in hand; over $5.00 a credit <>f 9 months will be given, pur- ! chaser giving note w ith good bankable security; 4 per cent off for cash. No property removed until settled for. DAVID LIBY. Noah Frauhiger, Auct. ,i H. H. Wefel, Clerk. PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will offer for sale at the tarm residence of the late John Schrank, one mile south of Pleasant Mills, on Thursday, December 14, 1911, beginning at 10 o’clock a. m., . the following property, to-wit: Live Stock: Black mare with foal, man ; mare; Jersey cow, will lie fresh soon; ‘ 37 head of sheep. Farming Imple--1 ments: One mower, spring tooth harrow, sulky hay rake, 2-horse wagon, , top buggy, 1-horse drill, set double I work harness, set single work hari ness, sleigh, 3 tons of timothy hay, 1 corn in the shock, household furni--1 ture and numerous other articles. Terms —All amounts of $5.00 and , under, cash in hand; all amounts over . $5.00 a credit of 9 months will be giv- -' en, purchaser giving note with good i bankable security. No property re- '; moved until settled for. BEN SCHRANK, Agent. Fred Fruchte, Clerk. o t PUBLIC SALE. I will sell at public sale at Salem, j 10 miles south of Decatur, and 6 : miles southeast of Monroe, on Tuesday, Dec. 19, 1911, beginning at 10 i- o’clock a. m., the following property, e to-wit: Six Head of Horses: One ’’bay draft colt, 2 years old: 1 black ” driving pony, 5 years old; 1 bay work d horse, 11 years old; 1 Dun driving j pony, 10 years old; 1 span mules, 12 ?- years old. Five Head of Cattle: One i 7 year-old milch cow; 2 three years 1 old, 1 two years old. 1 yearling calf. ejHogs: Three brood sows with pigs 0 . by side, 17 shoats. Farming Implements; Farm wagon, new; Deering hay tedder, 2 Stoddard cultivators, spring-tooth harrow, Oliver 404 break!t ing plow, hay rake. Eckhart buggy, d new; set breeching work harness, set |t i single buggy harness. з . 1 Terms: For all amou. t. of $5 and der, cash in hand; over $5 a vredit и. 9 months will be given, purchaser 'giving note with good bankable sejeurity; 4 per cent off for cash. No Property removed until settled for. g G. A. BAUGHMAN, d J. N. Burkhead, Auct. d O. L. Vance, Clerk. * Ul-.. M »A JL. TT. am ——