The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1905-03-07
TEXAS TRUST LAW VALID
United States Supreme Court Up
holds State Judiciary.
COTTON OIL MONOPOLY HIT

Power TO Tax Beef Trust Also Confirmed
--Long Fight Of "Lons STAR Corpora
tions Ends--Justice BrcKenna Hands
Down the observation-disclosures Of Two
Companies Forfeited.
Washington, D. C.-Two cases Of
great Importance were decided by the
United States Supreme Court, and one
of them, confirming the validity Of the
Texas Antitrust law, puts it immedi-
ately within the power of that State
to regulate every monopoly doing bust
ness there, and make all obey the law
the same as any individual.
The Texas Antitrust Law is the
most sweeping in the country, and
many lawyers have held that the SUI
preme Court would never affirm its
validity. This, however, it did, and by
it's decision declared forfeited the char
tiers of the National Cotton Oil Com
pany and the Southern Cotton Oil Com
pany
These two corporations ignored the
Texas law and repeatedly violated its
provisions for the purpose of making a
test case. The Texas Supreme Court
found the National Cotton Oil Company
guilty and declared that it had for
feited its right to do business in the
State.
The case Immediately was taken on
appeal 10 the United States Supreme
Court, the oil company holding that the
Texas Antitrust law was plainly I'M
constitutional and violated the right
of contract. The final court, Justice
McKenna writing the opinion, holds
that the law is valid; that the corpora
tons We're guilty and that the decision
of the Texas court FORGETTING their
charters must be upheld
The State charged that on the LIST
Of November. 1901, the oil companies
named entered into combination with
each other and with various other
firms, and as a result Of that arrange
ment became parties to a trust and
agreement whereby they agreed to fix
the price at which they would buy cot
tonseed and whereby they would regy-
late and fix the price Of cottonseed.1
In general terms the State Of Texas
commended that, in making such an
agreement, they had violated the State
Antitrust law. and had forfeited their
permit to transact business
The plaintiffs in error alleged insult
ficiency in law, and that the law was
unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The Supreme Court thus has held
thar the State had the right to pass the
law and that 1t had the right to inter
pref it and apply the penalties
The second case affirmed the consti-
nationality of the Georgia law imposing
q tax of 5000 ON the agents of packing
houses in each county Of the State.
The test suits We're brought by the At
lanta agent of Nelson, Morris & Co.,
of Chicago. Ill.,, who held that his COR
porati0n was doing an interstate bust
ness and the State tax could not be
imposed.
The Georgia court decided that In
cases in which meats were consigned
to an agent to be distributed to pur-
ehasers the law could not be sustained,
because it would be an Interference with
Interstate commerce, but that cases in
which they are shipped to him for sale
it is valid, and the agent is liable for
tax. The opinion, delivered by Justice
EIcKenna. concurred with the view of
the Georgia court
It was acknowledged, said the SUI
preme Courts opinion, that the greater
part of the business of packing house
agents was in delivering meats pre-
viousIy ordered, which was clearly in
terstate commerce. But it was equally
clear that they carried on domestic
business, such as selling Of meats.
In line OF previous decisions, it made
NO I A..
nestle business was compared with the
interstate business, or even If it were
merely incidental, it made the agent
subject to the whole tax. AS to the
contentious Of the appellant that it de-
MED him the equal protection Of the
law, being tax only on corporations
outside of the State, the opinion said
mat while the Court might suspect that
was the effect of the law, yet 1t did
not show on the face of the act.