El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1900-04-10
THE TEXAS BLOW TRUSTS.

Not aimee the antitrust agitation be-
gan has there been decision asalns'
q trust which has attracted wider al
tantion than the decision OF the United
States supreme court 10 the case OF the
w,ters- Pierce company against the
ssste of Texas. This decision certain
Jv indicates that all rig btful aud prac-
ticable remedies against trusts can De
invoked under laws easy of enactment
by the states, provided only legisia-
lures will set about the task in a sim
cere and Intelligent way.
The state of Texas undertook TO ae-
clare forfeited the charter OF the wat
ers Pierce com psny, as penalty FOR Vlo'
Ia,ion of the antitrust law OF the STATE.
The company appealed from sne oeci-
sion of the state courts, but the Unlteo
States supreme court aftirms the decl-
sion. and unless some other remedy can
be found BY the Standard Oil people,
their agents charter Is forfeited anu
their business as a trust in Texas Is AT
an end. They will be forced. here
after. to sell their product to joboers
In open market 10 the ordinary way.
This is a decided triumph for fair bust
ness methods.
The Texas law, passed last year, &C.
sufres, through this decision, consider
able interest for students and law
makers. 1t provides, in part,
that every com bination of capital or its
equivalent for the restraint OF trade
whether organized under the law OF
Texas or any state. doing busl-
ness within the state, shall be deemed
. trust or monopoly. The act prohibits
the giving away Of suy article or SELL
ing il for less than cost for the pur-
pose of preventing free competition In
manufacture or distribution. RefusaI
to sell to any person because ne Is NOT
q member of the combination 10 pro-
hibited. Purchasers of articles manu-
featured by violators of the law can
not be required to pay for them. Each
corporation is required yearly to state
under oath whether it is in any "pool.
Failure to report is.considered evidence
of guilt, Corporations violating the act
are subjec, to loss OF their CHARTERS
or prohibited from doing business
within the state, and are subject to
fine of from 5000 to $4,000 for each
ofense. Every days business Is
separate offense. All court business
may be set aside for the trial OF
case under the act, and prosecutors
are given on e-fourth of the penalties
imposed under the law.
Here, evidently, are several separate
weapons possible for use against the
customary methods OF trusts. me
one resorted to in the specific case just
decided Is the inhibition Of refusal to
sell to any person because not mem
Der of the combination. The Stsp-
dard Oil people, through their agents,
the Waters-Pierce people, made con-
tracts with certain merchants by which
the oil company required them to buy
of 1t exclusively. not to sell to any per-
son handling competing oils, and to
sell at price fixed by the company.
The statutes must be considered in
reference to these contracts, said JUS
tice McKeuna. I'm any other aspect
they are QOb euDJSCI W JUL iC'iS" W.
this record, except the power OF the
state court to restrict their regulation
to local commerce."
1t must be borne in mind that the
constitution atty of the Texas act, as a
whole, has not been passed upon. The
defense of the appellant company was
restricted to the inviolabil of their
contracts, the state court OF sppea Z
and the United States supreme court
both holding that the status of the com
pany's business after the passage OF
the act was subject to the provisions
of the act They could obey it or take
the consequences. As long as results
Of this kind can be reached under state
laws, the demand for amendment OF
the federal constitution in the interest
OF trust suppression will net get much
attention.
WALDEN FAwCETT, writing in the
Woman's Home Companion, on Two
men and the Automobile" declares
that "women have taken possession OF
Az snmathinr distinotlv