The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-03-20
ANTITRUST LAN GOOD
So Far as the Supreme Court
Chooses to Review 1t.
MUCH LEFT TO DECIDE
But the Waters-Pierce Com
pany Loses in Texas.

Washington, March 19. I'm the supreme
court an opinion was handed down today
in the case Of the Waters-Pierce Oil
company, involving its right to do bust
/ ness in the state of Texas contrary to the
| provisions Of the state antitrust laws
Of 1889 and 1895. It was charged among
other things that the Waters-Pierce COM
pany was a member of the Standard Oil
| trust, as organized in 1882, and various
| other allegations We're made, but the
court did not enter upon a general dis
! cusslOn Of trusts, contenting itself with a.
| discussion of the Texas law as applica BILE
| to this case. The opinion sustained the
| decisions of the state courts to the ex-
tent Of affirming them, and was thus OPP
| posed to the contentious of the oil COM
pany, but it did this upon the ground
| that the state laws imposed a condition
which the oil company had accepted and
hence was without ground of complaint
The opinion was handed down by JUS
tice McKenna, who. reviewing the case,
said that the Waters-Pierce company
was a private corporation incorporated in
Missouri, which had begun business in
the state of Texas in 1899. The suit grew
out Of the statement that the oil COM
pany violated the statutes of the state
Of 1889 and 1895 against illegal combina-
tons in restraint of trade, thereby in
curing a forfeiture of its permit to do
business in the state. The trial was first
had in the district court Of Travis county,
in which the verdict was against the oil
company An appeal to the court of civil
l. - h.
affirmed and it was brought to this court
on writ Of error. The basis of the ac-
ton was the Standard OH trust, organic
ed tn 1882, and it was owned that its in
tention was to control and monoDolize
the petroleum industry Of the United
States in restriction of trade dividing the
markets of the United States in the vari-
Gus subdivisions, awarding Texas to the
Waters-Pierce company. The decision of
today was based upon the propositions
which were submitted to the Jury in the
original trial.
Justice McKenna said: 'HT'he transac-
tons Of local commerce which were held
by the state courts to De violations of
the statutes, consisted in contracts with
certain merchants by which the plaintiff
in error required them to buy of It. ex-
clusively from it, and from no other
source, or buy exclusively from plaintiff
plaintiff in error and to sell at a price
fixed by it.
THE Statutes" he continued, must be ;
considered in reference to these contracts.
In any other aspect they are not subject
to our review on this re cord except the /
power Of the state to restrict their regu-
lation to local commerce, upon which a
contention is raised
He said the propositions raised by the
state courts had been broadly discussed
and many considerations transcending
them had been presented, relating to
grievances which do not enter into the
case as affecting the oil company. The
court felt constrained to confine itself to
this particular grievance. Stating this
grievance he said it was that the stat
utes of Texas limit its right to make
contracts, and take away the liberty as
sured by the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution of the United States.
Besides. it was asserted that the stat
utes made many determinations between
persons and classes of persons. On this
latter point the court did not feel called
upon to pass. The oil company was a
foreign corporation and its right of con-
tracing in the state of Texas was the
only subject Of inquiry. On this point
the opinion held that 1.-THE state pre-
acribes the purposes of a corporation and
the means of executing those purposes.
In this case the oil company could NOT Z
claim an exemption from the principla I
''on the ground that the permit of the
Z
against subsequent legislation by thu
state. The statute of 1889 was a condi-
Ion upon the plaintiff in error within the
power OF the state to impose and, what
ever its limitations were upon the power Q
of contracting. whatever its discrimina- !
lions were. they became conditions of the S
permit and were accepted with it. The /
statute was not repealed by the act of !
-SSo. The only substantial addition made
oy the latter act was to exclude from its 4
provisions organizations of laborers for I
he purpose Of maintaining a standard +
# wages" s
Further, as to the act OF 1895. he said: c
1t is either constitutional or unconstitu-
lonaL II 1t is constitutional. the plain r
III IN error has no legal cause to COM
'lain Of it. If unconstitutional, il does Il
lot affect the act of 1889, and that as
We have seem imposes valid conditions
iPon the plaintiff in error and their vio- Il
alton subjected its permit to do business b
n the state to forfeiture" a
Justice Harlan dissented from the opin- o
on I
Nearly Lynched the Wrong Negro !.
joplin, Mo, March 19,-It developed to- :
ay that the negro spirited away fro7, =