New-York tribune., 1909-11-21

nation and the state while the corpora
items whose stock was vested in the Stan
dsrd OF Company IN tiiis Sase S,,S wers ,s pr
RESTRAINT Of trade resulted from the trust
of 1893 IL was neither direct, immediate,
nor substantial
FA2REACHING INJUNCTION.
The court finds against the defendants
on all these propositions. In conclusion
the court says:
That the Standard OH Company 81 New
Jerssy. the seven individual defendants
ard an Of the subsidiary defendant CON
panies engaged in commerce OF petroleum
or its products among the states or Win
foreign nations controlled by the principal
company have entered into and sie opcr-
atinc g combination or conspiracy IN ie-
straiut OF trade and commerce among the
several states such = denounced as
Illegal by Section I of the antitrust act
uf july . lsa0. snd have combined and
conspired TO monerolize. have secured
thereby an unlawful monopoly OF, and are
combining and copspiring to continue TO
monopolize substantial part of interstate
and interns tionsl c pmu1erce tn violation OF
Se ction Of that act; that the Standard
ON Company Of New Jersey bs enloinsG
from voting the stock in any OF the de-
iendaEt companies %hlcL y acquired ly
,-irtue OF that combination and from eNeT-
cisinS or attempting 10 exercise any cor
trol, direction, supervision ar influence over
the acts of any OF these companies by
secured through that cOfnbination; thst the
other defendant companies which are
critics 10 the combination be enioiaed from
declaring or paying any dividends % the
STANDARD OIL Company on account Cf ANY
stock acquired BY IL through that combs
ietiOn. from permitting that co npsny TO
tcte such stock OF 60 direct the policy Of
ary OF sad companies. or TO exercise any
C'5itTol Whatsoever over their corporate
il secured by means OF that conbir alton:
that the seven individual defendants and
the corporations and partnerships that be-
came parties to this cOrnbination ne on
ioinsd from continuing il or carving it out
and from entering into or performing any
hke CoT1b'netifu she effect cf which IS or
viii be. 20 restrain or monopolze. or 20
continue their unlawful monopoly Of inter
state commerce in petroleum and It's prod
ucts IN violation Of the antitrust act either
Nl b. plScinE the control OF an Of se I'd
corporations IN q trustee. or in a group of
trustees hy means Of thc holding Of its
stock or property By others than it's equi-
table owners. by causing the conveysncA OF
the physical property and business Of two
or more potentisllv competitive parties 10
the combination to any party thereto. or
BY any other such act or ~ b. making
sny express OF Implied agreement or ar
Tangement together. OF one with another.
ike that adiudged illegal hereby. relative
70 the control or management of aTiv Of
said corporations. or the price OF terms
Of purchase OF sale CT the rates Of trans
portation of petroleum Ste products IN
interstate or international commerce or
relative 20 the quantities thereof purchased
sold transported or manufactured by snv
Of said corporations which will have q like
effect in restraint Of commerce among the
states. in the territories and with foreign
nations TO that Of the combination the on
GRAFTON of which Is hereby enJoined: that
the defendants who are parties TO the COM
bination be enioined from engaging or con
tinulng i'm interstate commerce in petroleum
and its products during the continuance Of
the Illegal continuation. that the United
states recover its costs Of the defendants
who are parties to the combination and that
the other dtfcndants be dismissed
JUDGE HOOKS STRONG VIEWS
Judge Hook. in his ooncurring opinion.
expressed strong views on tho case, in
rart as follows.
The principal CONCLUSIONS upon which Ne
are all agreed may be briefly stated as
follows: holding company owning tie
stocks If other concerns whose commercial
activities. II fICe and independent OF a com
mon control. wOuld naturally bring then,
into oompetition wiki each other. IS a form
+ e trust or combination prohibited nv Sc
tion ! Of the sherman antitrust act The
Standard OF Company Of New Jersey is
s1ch holding company. The defendants
Who &C n the combination are eniofued
from continuing II and from forridug an
ether Ike il. The holding COMPANY IS o.
e"lhtd from exercising the rights Of
sto, khoider IN the subordinate coTapsnios
snd ilitv are enjoined from allowing IN "a
oe So or TO beneht thercfrom in the Nay
II j. thought that with the enl Of the
teinbinatlCn the monopoly VIII naturally
nssI Ip4sf, but lest. instead of resulting
salnHd be perpetudted by the aggregation
81 IN phNsical properties and insirun1entsl-
LES by which Il ls maintained in the la rs
lIo,,ia1,iCI, is,l'O'r 9I ne combination and the
OF me other members II is held that such
course would violate the decree
me extent and linits tions OF the first
sfe'lon 50 ION. have been pretty well jehned Ia
I il9 many adiudged cases
..,.ls ~ second section % the act provides:
! i.etit person who shall monopoIize or At
triupt 10 monopOllZe or combine to conSuirs
WIZ any oiher person or persons To mo-
siDl ol.1e any par OF the trade or CONNER e
ali.pIis ths several states or with foreign
hs1I,,.is, no.ss, snail be deemed guilty OF a mis-
Ma Manf,estlg t,g this section is quite distinct
n Lluln lne nTSt- and was not intended TO
cover precisely tho same ground To 80
9tne5wlse would be TO impute 10 Conr,ress
nie DONG OF the unnecessary aud uselass
iho9gh the natural tendency of a corntt-
Latioh IN restraint Of trade declared ilIn
sal by section may be and generally Is
toNaIu monopoly denounced bE Section
ana may even accomplish it vet tn scson,..
o- the latter section is far hroa,er apd
Nas designed to extend also to monopolies
+ 81 - D9 "lher means than by contracts
com nbinstlons and conSpiracies in restraint
oI or iFade, which, as these terms necessarily
HPiH' require concert between two ar
more persons or corporations
oIe person or corporation may offend
sasali,st lne second section by monopoliz-
n
( d.ct OF t"o or more. A cuFsory feadine
OF me act shows this.
mat u WAS the intention Of Couerese
10 condemn mOnopOlies not based on fIlo-
kal eoinbinalons among several. but Sc
cured ~ single persons natural or artff-
cldi, oy other means, also appears from
the history Of legislation To offend tLc
act the monopoly must have been secured
by methods contrary TO the public policy
as expressed in the statutes or in tic COM
mon law.
The modern doctrine is but recognition
OF the obvious truth that what a govern
ment should rot grant because Injurious
10 public welfare. the individual should not
he allowed 10 secure and hold 10y wrong
ful means.
The haneful effect il the same whether
the monopoly comes az a gift from a gov
erninert Cr Is the result OF individual
WronSuoing Nor can arguments OF re-
duced prices OF product. economy in Opera-
tion and the like have weight
During the discussion of the amend msut
above referred 20. apprehension WAS eN-
pressed over the broad language Of the
second section OF the proposed act and in
qUiry was made whether the Committee
having the bill in charge Intended IL should
make IL Al offence N an individual engaged
Ia Interstate and foreign commerce "by his
own skill ana energy. by the prOpriety Of
his conduct generally, shall pursue his call
iIg in such way IS % monOpolize a
trade" Assura noes were given tllst the
term monopoly" had no such sigflifcance
% means which prevented others from en-
gsging ina fair competition. tho engrossing
81 trade aud the like. Undoubtedly this
view prevailed al the passage of the law.
THE DECREE ISSUED.