Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1907-12-17
WATERS-PEARCE OIL co.
GIVEN BODY BLOW
IN TEXAS
Appellate Court Gusts ConviC-
ted Trust From State and
Places Fine at
S1.690.O0O.
GUILTY OF VIOLATING
ANTITRUST LAW
Tribunal Refuses Hearing of Re-
CeIvershIp Case and Says That
Fine Might Have Been Much
Greater Under the Statutes
--JudgmentNot Excessive.

Austin. Tex. Dec. 1.-THE state
appellate court has approved the
judgment of the trial court In the
case of the state against the Waters
Pierce OIL company. Under the terms
OF this Judgment. the company was
round guilty of violating the anti
trust laws and was assessed penal
ties aggregating $1,690,000, and was
debarred from doing business In Tex
as. The court also refused a rehear-
ing in the receivership case against
the same company. The material
points IN controversy are passed up
on as follows:
1T is contended on behalf Of the
appellant that the antitrust act of
May 30, 1899. was rendered uncon-
stitutional by the passing OF another
statute at the same session OF the
legislature, entitled An act to pro-
tect workingmen in the right OF or
ganization and the purposes there-
Of approved May 81, 1899, wherein
II was provided that, from and after
it's passage, 1t should be lawful for
any and all persons engaged in any
kind of work or labor, manual or
mental or both, to associate themsel-
YES together and form trades unions
and other organizations for the pur-
pose OF protecting themselves in their
personal work. personal labor and
Pti icCIdt ctiftCc thtlF ISSHttllN8
pursuits and employments. BY the
third section 1t Is declared that that
act shall not apply to combinations
or associations of capital or ce pital
and persons, formed for the purpose
of limiting the production or con-
sumption of labor's products. or for
any other purpose, In restraint of
trade, and declares that nothing
therein contained shall be held to In
terfere with the terms and conditions
OF private contract; and provides,
further;
That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to repeal, affect or
diminish the force and effect OF any
statute now existing on the subject or
trusts, conspiracies against trade.
pools and monopolies.'
Antitrust Act Not Affected.
"In view of these limitations placed
upon that act, we are of the opinion
that it was not the intention of the
legislature TO authorize anything to
be done that was prohibited by this
act of May %, 1899; hence we hold
that this statute engrafts no exemp-
tion upon the antitrust statute refer
red to.
"The antitrust statute of May 25,
1893. having been superseded and re-
pealed by the act of March 81, 1903,
which diminished the pecuniary pen-
alties. appellant sought to have the
! AttttCh sAdldtt dPPitA " tie tlNit
before as well as after IL went into
effect. This was refused. and. we
think, properly so, on account of this
provision in the latter act: Provided
nothing in this act shall be held or
| construed to effect or destroy any
| rights OF the state of Texas to re-
cover penalties or forfeit charters OF
| domestic corporations, or prohibit
| foreign corporations from doing
business in this state, for acts COM
mitted before this act took effect
Comma Not Destructive.
Nor can we sanction the PROPOSE
tion that, because of the location OF
a comma in the proviso quoted, IL
was the intention OF the legislature
TO protect and preserve the right OF
the state to recover penalties from
| domestic corporations and not pre-
serve such righs as against foreign
| corporations.
at Is claimed that the trial court
should have granted appellants mo-
| ton for a new trial, based upon the
ground that the judgment imposes
excessive fines and operates as de-
privation OF property without due
| process OF law. 1t Is also contended
that the act OF 1899 should be de-
clared void because 1t authorizes ex-
cesslve fines and forfeitures
That Question Decided.
THAT question already has been
decided against appellants contention
in Stale VS.. Laredo Ice Company. 90
Texas 467. The verdict, while large,
| is much under the maMmum permits
( ted by the law. Its magnitude Is
mainly attributable TO appellants re-
peated and long-cOntinued violation
OF the law, covering a period of six
years.
| In appellants motion for a new
| trial in the court below, and In its
presentation of the case here. the
verdict OF the jury has been chal-
lenged, the contention being that tha
| testimony fails to show that appel
land has violated any OF the antitrust
/ laws of this state.
Party 10 Trust Agreement.
'1t is sufficient, we think, 10 show
! that from the date OF it's permit TO do
| business I'm this state, May 81, 1890,
| appellant has been party 10 an
| agreement or understanding with the
Standard oil company of New Jersey.
! one object OF which was TO create
4 monopoly and control the price OF
! petroleum oil and prevent cOmpeti-
| tion In its sale I'm a large and speci-
fed territory, including the state OF
! Texas, and that, TO large extent.
such object has been accomplished.
Hence we hold that the verdict Is
supported by testimony and no error