The age-herald., 1900-03-20
SUPREME COURT
 AGAINST TRUSTS Texas Decision Against an Oil Company Was Sustained. QUESTION OF STATE LAWS Justice McKenna in Rendering Decis- ion Did Not Directly Discuss
 Trusts, But Confined Himself
 to the Texas Law
QUESTION OF STATE LAWS

Washington, March 1s-In the United States supreme court an opinion was hand ed down today in the case of the Waters Pierce oil company, involving it's rights to do business 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 company was a member of the Standard Oil trust, as organized in 1882, and various allegations were made, but the court did not enter upon general discussion of the Texas laws as applicable to this case. The opinion sustained the de- cisions of the state courts ito the extent of affirming them, and was thus opposed to the contentious of the oil company, but 1t 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 Justice McKenna, who reviewing the case, said that the Waters-Price company was a private corporation, incorporated in Mis- souri, which had begun business in the state of Texas in 1ss9 The suit grew out of the charge that the oil company violated the
 
 against illegal combinations in restraint of trade, thereby mourning forfeiture or It's permit to do business in the state.
 Began in Tavis County
 The trial was first held 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 decision was affirmed, and it was brought to this court on a writ of error
 The basis of the action was the Standard Oil trust, organized in 1882, and it was own ed that its intention was to control and monopolize the petroleum industry in the United States in restriction of trade, divid- ing the markets of tine 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 transac- tions 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 of it, exclusively from it, and from no other source, or buy ex- clusively from plaintiff in error and not to sell to any person handling competing oils or to buy exclusively from plaintiff in er- TOT 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 record, except the power of the state court to restrict their regulation to local commerce, upon which a contention is raised
 Question Broadly Discussed
 He said the propositions raised by the state courts had been broadly discussed and many considerations transcend.ng them had been presented relating to griev- ances which do not enter into the case as affecting the oil company The court felt constrained to confine itself to this par ticular grievance. Stating this grievance, he said, it was that tine statutes of Texas limits its rights to make contracts ana take away liberty assured by the four teenth amendment to the constitution or the United States. Besides it was as serted that the statutes made many dGs- criminations between persons and classes of persons. On this latter point, the court did 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 he'd that "the state prescribes the purposes of a corporation and the means of executing these pur- poses.''
 In this case the oil company could not claim an exemption from the princ.p.e lon the ground that the permit of the company was a contract invtolalDie against subse- quent legislation joy the state. The stat ute of 1889 was a condition upon the plain tiff in error within the power of the state to impose and whatever its limitations wero upon the power of contracting, what ever its determinations were, they became conditions of the permit and were accepted With 1t. The statute was not repealed by act eff 1895. Gtne only substantial add ton made by the latter act was to exclude from it's provisions organza tions of labor CTS for the purpose of maintaining a standard form of wages.
 Further, to the act of 1895 he sad it is either constitutional or unconstitutional. If It is constitutional the plaintiff in error has no legal cause to complain of it. if unconstitutional it does not affect the act of 1889 and that as we have seen imposes valid conditions upon the plaintiff in error and their violations subjected its permit to do business in the state to forfeiture.' Justice Harlan dissented from the opinion.
 ds nsu ,It