The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-25
AN ENCOURAGING SIGN.

Union would at the same time pass
every one honestly seel<.to enforce the
law, the trusts would be broken up in
five years. Texas has been pioneer
i'll passing and enforcing antitrust
legislation. and the decision by the
Supreme Court affirming the decision
of the State court is an encouraging
sign. \ Washington dispatch gives
the following synopsis of the decision:
I'm the United States Supreme
Court an opinion was handed down to-
day in the ease Of the Waters-Plerce
Oil Company, involving its right to do
business in the State of Texas. con-
trary to the provisions OF the State
antitrust laws of 1889 and 1895. 1t
was charged. among other things,
that the Waters-Pierce Company was
member of the Standard Oil trust,
as organized in 1882, and various other
allegations were made; but the court
did not enter upon general discus
sion of trusts, contenting itself with
a discussion of the Texas law as APP
plicable to this case. The opinion
sustained the decision of the State
courts to the extent of affirming them,
and was thus opposed to the con-
tentions of the oil company: but it
did this upon the ground that the
State laws imposed condition which
the oil company had accepted. and
hence was without ground of com
plant.
The opinion was handed down by
Justice Mckenna, who. reviewing the
case. said that the Waters-Pierce Com
pany was private corporation, incOr-
porated in Missouri. which had be-
gun business in the State of Texas
in 1882 The suit grew out of the
charge that the oil company violated
the statutes of the State of 1889 and
1895 against illegal combination in re-
straint of trade, thereby mourning a
forfeiture of its permit to do business
in the State. The trial was first had
in the district court of Travis coun-
ty. in which the verdict was against
the oil company. On appeal to the
court of civil appeals of the State the
decision was affirmed, and it was
brought to this court on u writ of
HC DuSIS vi lllC tiCtIoI wac
the Standard Oil trust. organized in
1882. and it was owned that its inten-
ton was 40 control and monopolize
the petroleum industry of the United
States, in restriction of trade. dividing
the markets of the United States into
various 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: The
transactions of local commerce which
We're held by the State courts to be
violations of the statutes consisted in
contracts with certain merchants. by
which the plaintiff in error required
them to buy of it exclusively and from
no other source, or buy exclusively
from plaintiff in error and not to
sell to any person handling compel
ing oils. or to buy exclusively from
plaintiff in error and to sell at a price
fixed by it, The statutes he contin-
ued. must be considered in reference
tC these contracts. In any other as
pect they are not subject to our re-
view on this record, except the power
of the State court TO restrict their
regulation to local commerce, upon
which a contention is raised
He said the proposition raised in
the State courts had been broadly dis
cussed. and many considerations tran
scending them had been presented,
to grievances which do not
enter into the case as affecting the
oil company The court felt con-
to confine Itself to this p;lr-
ticular grievance. Stating this grieV-
ance, he said. it was that the stat
utes of Texas limit its right to make
contracts and take away the liberty
assured by the fourteenth amend
ment to the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. Besides. lit was asserted
that the statutes make many dis
tca&saa ss~-~~snns and
classes % pv1-cE@ ea2 gsss szss-ag
point the court di5 moi Ices 49, 49,
upon to pass. The oil company is
foreign corporation, and its right 10
contract in the State Of Texas was
the only subject OF inquiry. On this
point the opinion held that the State
the purposes of corpora
ton ana the means of @eXecuiinS
those purposes
''In this case the oil company could
not claim an exemption from the
on the ground that the per-
nit OF the company was {, -l,:ntract
inviolable against subsequent ieglsla-
ton ty the State. The statute of 1889
was a condition upon tie plaintiff
in errcr within TIE power OF Us
State t. irc--ozs, an17 sTat"vrAs IL
iraisaMsns --,ase EpGa hse p6rscc- ct
whatever frs diEcr4Inine-
ions were. they became conditions OF
the permit and were accepted with
It. The statute was not repealed by
he act of 1895. The only substantial
made by the latter act was
to exclude from its provisions organi-
cations of laborers for the purpose Of
a standard of wages.
Further as TO the act of 1895. he
said: 1T is either constitutional or
If it is constitutions
Al, the plaintiff in error las no legal
,ause TO complain of it. If unconsti-
it does not affec. the act of
1889, and that. as we have seen, Jun
poses valid conditions upon the plain
if in error. and their violation sub
iected its permit to do business in the
State to forfeiture.
Justice Harlan dissented from the