Washington sentinel., 1900-03-24
vaIidLtr Of Antitrust Laws.

nOunceo IT'S decision IN the Case y
the Waters Pierce Company VS.
the State OF Texas. This suit in
volved the right Of the company to
do business in Texas contrary to
the provisions OF the State anti
trust laws Of 1889 and 1895. The
Waters. Pierce Company was said
to be the agent Of the Standard
| Oil Company. The latter was
charged with attempting to control
and monopolIze the petroleum in-
dustry OF the United States, in re-
striction OF trade. 1t was claimed
that the Waters Pierce Company,
to which the Standard Oil had
awarded the business in Texas,
had violated the laws OF the State
against illegal combinations and
had therefore forfeited its charter.
The Supreme Court held that the
oil company had accepted the
conditions which the State laws
imposed and was without ground
OF complaint for the forfeiture Of
its charter.
Last year the Texas Legislature
enacted stringent antitrust legisla-
tion, but it does not appear that
the validity of the new act was
specifically an issue in the case de-
cided on Monday by the Supreme
Court. The statute OF 1899 pro-
Vides, in substance, that every
combination OF capital or its equiv.
alent for the restraint of trade,
whether organized under the laws
of Texas or any State, doing busi-
ness within the State, shall be
deemed a trust or monopoly. The
&C: prohibited the giving away OF
any article or selling it for less
than cost for the purpose OF pre-
venting free competition in manu-.
Iacture or distribution. Refusal
to sell to any person because he is
not a member of the combination
is prohibited. Purchasers OF arti-
cles manufacture bV violators OF
the la@ cannot be required to pay
for them. Each corporation is re-
quired yearly to state under oath
whether il is in any pool" Fail
ure to answer within 80 days Is
considered evidence OF guilt. Cor
porations violating the act are sub
ject to loss of their charters or
prohibited from doing business
within the State, and are subject
to a fine oi from $500 to S., 900 for
each offense. All court business
may be set aside for the trial of
case under the act, and prosecut-
ors are given one-tourth OF the
penalties imposed under the law.
An act OF this comprehensive
character would seem to provide
an effective remedy against some
of the evils Of our industrial mon
opolies. The provision against
the giving away of any article or
selling it for less than cost would
hit some of the trusts in a tender
spot, Tor It is by methods of this
kind that they frequently destroy
competition. When their rivals
are driven out of the field the
trusts OF course advance prices and
reimburse themselves al the ex-
pense of consumers for their gen.
eTosity. The law OF Il 300 prohibits
refusal to sell to any person
because he is not a member OF the
combination. This was evidently
one OF the charges brought against
the Waters Pierce Company by
the State oil Texas under the laws
oi 1889 and 1895. The transsc-
tons which the Court of Appeals
OF Texas held to be violations OF
the statutes consisted, as Justice
McKenna pointed out, Of contracts
With certain merchants by which
the oil company required them to
buy of it exclusively, not to sell to
any person handling competing oils
and to sell at price fixed by the
company. The statutes must be
considered in reference to these
contracts, said Justice McKeDna.
Sin any other aspect they are not
subject to our review on this rec
ord, except the power oithe State
Court to restrict their regulation
to local commerce"
It was held by Mr.. Cleveland. in
his different messages to Con-
gress, that the regulation Of trusts
depended principally upon the
States. II the latter can make
laws which provide for the forfeit
ure OF charters Tor violation OF their
statutes, as in Texas, the solution
OF the trust problem in the interest
OF the public is not an impossible
ity. II the trusts must carry out
certain prescribed conditions on
pain OF forfeiting their charters,
4 ,I.ksnn. 20