The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1900-04-07
validity and Antitrust Laws.


The Supreme Court of the United States announc-
ed its decision in the of the waters-Pierce Com
many against the State of Texas This suit involved
the right OF the company to do business I'D IeAas
contrary to the provisions OF the State ANTITRUST
laws OF 1889 and 1895. The Waters-Pierce Company
was alleged to be the agent Of the Standard oil
Compauy. The latter was charged with attempt
ing to control and monopolize the Petroleum IN
dustry of the United States in restriction OF trade
1t was claimed that the Waters Pierce Company 10
which the Standard Oil Trust had awarded the
business in Texas, had violated the laws OF tue
State against illegal combinations and had there
fore forfeited its charter. The supreme Cour'
held that the oil company had accepted the condi-
lions which the State laws imposed and was with
out ground of complaint for the forfeiture OF Its
charter.
Last year the Texas Legislature enacted stringent
antitrust legislation but it does not appear that
validity of the act was specifically an issue III
the case decided by the Supreme Court The statute
of 1899 provides in substance, that every combna-
tion of capital or its equivalent for the restraint OF
trade whether organized under the laws OF Texas
or any State, doing business within the State, snail
be deemed trust or monopoly. The act prohiolts
the giving away of any article or selling 1t Tor less
than cost for the purpose OF preventing Tree com
petition in manufacture or distribution. Refusal
to sell to any person because he is not member OF
the combination is prohibited. Purchasers OF ar
ticles manufactured by vioaters of the law cannot
be required to pay for Them Each corporation is
required yearly to state under oath whether ii is
in any pool" Failure to answer within 80 days is
considered evidence of guilt. Corporations violat
ing the act are subject to loss of their charters or
prohibited from doing business within the State,
and are subje t fine of from 900 to 5000 for
each ofense Every days business is a separate
offense All court business may be set aside for the
trial of a case under the act, and prosecutors are
given one fourth 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 industrial monopolies- The pro-
vision against the giving away of any articles or
selling il for less than cost would hit some of the
trusts in tender spot for it is by methods of this
kind that they frequently destroy competition.
When their rivals driven out of the field the
trusts of course advance prices and reimburse them
selves at the expense of consumers for their gener
osity The law of 1899 prohibits refusal to sell to any
because he is not a member of the combination
This was evidently one of the charges brou hit
against the waters-P Pierce Company by the State of
Texas under the laws of 1889 and 1885. The trans
actions which the Court of Appeals of Texas held
to be violations the statutes consisted as Justice
MeKenna 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 NUT be considered
in reference to these contracts said Justice Nc
Kenna "In any other aspect they not subject
to our review on this record. except the power of
the State Court to restrict their regulation to local
commerce.,