Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-11-24
sHREWD LAWYERS BELIEVE su,
PREME COURT WILL REVERSE
RECENT ADVERSE DclsloN.
CITE COMMODITIES CASE
AS GROUNDS FOR OPINION
Some of the Same Questions, Including
Rights of Holding Companies, In
voved in That Deoision-Governmen
Carefully Selected Circuit Court Of
Antitrust Sentiments.
Especial Correspondence

ell
Washington, Nov. 24-WiI the SUI
preme court of the United States save
the Standard Oil Company?
1T will if it follows the general
lines of economic reasoning and strict
adherence to legal technicality. which
1t laid down in the commodities
clause" replied one of the government
lawyers who has been for several years
making speciality of handling federal
cases against the railroads and trusts.
Il know" proceeded the lawyer,
that the commodities clause and the
Sherman anti-trust act are two very
different things; but the fact remains
that the man familiar with the general
lines OF reasoning that have been laid
down in the cases involving the fed
eral power Of regulation of the instru-
mentalities of commerce, can find the
answer to the Standard Oil decision.
just handed down in the circuit court
of appeals, by a careful analysis of the
decision in the commodities case"
thority is entitled to weight. He ex-
pressed the confident opinion that the
Standard Oil lawyers will, in the su-
preme court. stand largely on the COM
modities case decision, and declared,
after much study of the latter, that
the court will have a most difficult
matter to reconcile the latter decision
with an opinion sustaining the circuit
court of appeals in the Standard OIL
case.
Court Carefully Selected.
Some curious and interesting consid-
erations are advanced by the close
analysts of this Standard Oil situa-
tion. Thus tits remembered that when
the Standard Oil case was about to be
filed, there was long and prayerful
contemplation Of the question: where
should the case be brought? There are
nine judicial circuits in the country:
and study of the personnel of the
benches, and of the tenor of their de-
cisions in more or less related cases.
led to the conclusion that the one cir
cult in which there was better than an
even chance for the government to
win was the eighth. For that reason
and that alone the case was taken
there
In other words, the decision lust
handed down does not have the weight
which would attach to a winning at
the game of tossing pennies because
these experts figure that it was origin
ally about an eight-to-one shot: the
government had one court in which it
stood to win; the trust would have had
the best chance in eight courts. The
government had the privilege of de-
termlnlng where it would start the
cases. and it won the first round he.
cause fthe shrewdness of its selec
ton.
Commodities Decision Cited.
But now comes the supreme court.
The latest pronouncement of that BODY
IN a great case involving much the
same line of questions is the co,nn,od
tiles decision. The court divided eipht
to one In the commodities case. .Tustice
Harlan standing alone, as he did in
the famous old knight case, for a de-
c1sion sustaining the law.
In the commodities case was in
volved the statute forbidding a rail-
read to transport freight in which II
held an interest, direct or Indirect" 1t
was shown that in certain cases rail-
roads owned all the stock in Others n
controlling interest in the stock. of
| mining companies. Did that constitut,
an interest, direct or indirect" In the
coal?
The court said 1t didn't; not a legal
interest. The lawyers all say the courr
was right but they also saw that the
/ words cor Indirect were intended to
cover exactly that situation The court
held that they didn't cover it at all.
! Thus it is held in substance that n
holding company has no interest "di
rect or indirect" In the products of The
held company The Standard OIL Com
pany is IA great holding company. If it,
| likewise. Is to be found to have no in
terest. direct or indirect" In the pro-
ducts of its subsidiaries, can 1t be en-
gagged in a conspiracy in restraint OF
trade, with and thru those companies
| The lawyers are mighty dubious
whether 1t can or not: and comics nj
the commodities case decision are
away above par these days In quarters
where eminent counsel is trying to
| figure out what is going to happen
| Wnen tne stdiiuaru case gets TO the Su-
| preme court.
Attorneys Are Keeping Mum.
The lawyers who are looking into
! these matters Will not permit them
selves to be quoted. In the present in
stance, one of the widely known trust
| busting lawyers of the administration
who has been In the supreme cour,
with cases in this line good many
times, is quoted; and he thinks the
governments chance of winning above
Is decidedly less than even. He ad-
mitted that the court has managed
especially in the Danbury hatters' ca Sc
largely to override its decision OF 1885,
in the Knight case. But he doubts
greatly whether 1t Is yet ready to over
rule the commodities case. and he car
not see how how Il Is to make the two con.
4 sistent
| FINALLY tha tnterAqf A., tha Sskopdo ~