Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-19
SUSTAINED THE LAWS
Texas Courts Supported by Supreme
Court.
Decision Against the OIL Company
Had Accepted Conditions Imposed
and Couldn't Complain.

In the United States Supreme Court an
| opinion was handed down today in the case
| of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, involv-
ing its right to do business In the state of
| Texas. contrary to the provisions of the
state antitrust laws of 1889 and 1873. 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 a general
| discussion of trusts, contenting itself with
a discussion of the Texas law as applicable
| to- this case. The opinion sustained the de-
cisions Of the state courts to; the extent Of
affirming them, and was thus opposed to
| the contentious 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 with
out ground of complaint - ~-
| The opinion was handed down by Justice
| Mckenna, who, reviewing the case said
| that the Waters-Pierce Company was a pri-
vate corporation Incorporated in Missouri,
which had begun business in the state of
| Texas in 1889 The suit grew out of the
charge that the oil company violated the
| statutes of the state of 1899 and 1895
| against Illegal combinations in restraint of
| trade, thereby mourning forfeiture of its
permit to do business in the state. The
| trial was first had in the district court of
| Tavis county. in which the verdict was
| against the oil company. On appeal to the
court of civil. appeals of the state this de-
cis1on was affirmed, and it was brought to
| this court on writ of error. The basis Of
| the action was the Standard Oil trust or
ganized In lss2. and it was owned that its
| intention was to control and monopolize the
| petroleum industry of the United States in
| restriction OF trade, dividing the markets Of
| the United States into various subdivisions
| to- bo
| pany.
| Justice Mckenna's Opinion.
| The decision of today was based upon
| the propositions which were submitted to
the jury in the original trial. Justice Nc
| kenna said:
The transactions of local commerce
which were 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
| Oh IL exclusively from it and from no other
| source, or buy exclusively from plaintiff in
| error and not to sell to any person handling
| competing oils. or to buy exclusively from
| ptaAntiH in error and to sell at a price fixed
by It, The statutes" he continued, must
| be considered in reference to these con-
| tracts. In any other aspect they are not
subject to our review on this record except
| the power of the state court to restrict
| their regulation to local commerce upon
| which contention is raised''
| ne SAID the proposition raised in the
| state courts had been broadly discussed
and that many considerations transcending
| them had been presented, relating to griey-
| ances which do not enter into the case as
| aHectfng the oil company. The court felt
| constrained to confine itself to this partic-
| ular grievance.
| Stating this grievance, he said 1t was that
| the statutes of Texas limit its right to make
| contracts and take away the liberty assured
| by the fourteenth amendment to the Con-
| stitution of the United States. Besides, it
| was asserted that the statutes make many
| DETERMINATIONS between persons and classes
| OF persons On the latter point the court
| dld NOT feel called upon to pass. The Oil
| company is a foreign corporation and its
| right to contracting in the state of Texas
! was the only subject Of inquiry. On this
| point the opinion held that 1.-The state pre-.
| scribes the purposes of a corporation and
! the means of executing those purposes"
Conditions Accepted.
! In this case the oil company could not
claim an exemption from the principle ION
| the ground that the permit of the company
| was a contract inviolable against subse-
quent legislation by the state. The statute
OF 1889 was a condition upon the plaintiff
| In error within the power of the state to
impose, and, whatever its limitations were
| upon the power of contracting, whatever
| ITS determinations were, they became con-
| ditions of the permit and were accepted
with 1t: The statute was not repealed by
| act Of 1895. The only substantial addition
made by the latter act was to excluds from
| Its provisions organizations of laborers for
the purpose Of maintaining a standard OF
| wages"
Further, as to the act of 1898. he said.
| 1t is either constitutional or unconstitu-
tional. II it is constitutional the plaintiff
| IN error mas no legal cause to complain of
| It. II unconstitutional 1t does not affect the
| act of 1889 and that, we have seen, Inn
poses valid conditions upon the plaintiff In
| error and their violation subjected its per
| init to do business in the state to for
! feiture."
Justice Harlan dissented from the opinion.
| Other Supreme Court Opinions.
Justice Gray in the United States Su-
| preme Court today rendered an opinion in
the case of John R. Baidley vs. c. p Hum
| tington. involving title to part of the
| townsite Of the town of Huntington, Va
The circuit court for West Virginia decided
that it had no jurisdiction in the case, but
| todays opinion of the Supreme Court re-
| verses this decision and sends the case back
| to the circuit court for further proceedings.
| The United States Supreme Court today
| denied the petition of the Westinghouse
| Air Brake Company for writ of certiorarf
| in its suit against the New York Air Brake
| Company. The case was originally insti-
| tuted by the Westinghouse Company alleg-
| ing violation on the part of the New York
| company of the Westinghouse patents
The decision of the circuit court of ap-
peals for the second circuit was opposed to
| the prayer OF the Westinghouse Company
| and the effect of todays action is to refuse
to review the decision.
The Quackenbush Case.
| Chief Justice Fuller of the United States
Supreme Court today handed down an opin-
| ion in the claim of Commander John n
Quackenbush of the United States navy to
| recover pay for services from 1888 to 1897
The case involves a complicated story of
effort at dismissal and at reinstatement to
| rank in the navy.
| The court held that O,la ckeohusb uos
not entitled to back pay and also that the
| United states could not recover money paid
| him. Quackenbush was succeeded as COM
| mander in 1874 by Admiral Schley
A petition for certiorari was today filed in
| the United States Supreme Court in two
| cases. in which the American Sugar Re-
timing Company asks for a revision of the
| into the United States.
The complaint urges that there was prac-
| tically double charge on some of the i'm
| portations, and asks for the establish
ment of a uniform system The case was
| decided against the sugar company in the
| circuit court Of anneaIs for Tho saoora "a.