Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1909-09-17
Legal Information


The Missouri Supreme Court in
State ex inf. Hadley vs.. Standard Oil
Co., JIG Southwestern Reporter, 902-
1862. %convicts the Standard Oil Com
pany, the Waters-Pierce Oil Company,
and the Republic Oil Company Of New
York OF violating the antitrust laws
Of Missouri tRev. st. 1899. C. 143 [Ann.
st. 1906, Sections 1865, S992D. We
can only refer to a single interesting
point as to the Waters-Pierce Oil Com
pany, a domestic corporation. A judg-
ment of custer was rendered against
1t, but the judgment was ordered sus.
pended on proof that the company had
severed all connection with the other
corporation. in maintaining a trust to
control the price of petroleum, and
would refrain from all such combina-
tons, and that it would furnish salts
factory evidence of it's compliance with
the Judgment, and its intention in
good faith to cease all connection with
the other condemned corporations, and
carry Oil its business in Obedience to
it's charter and the law. In attempted
compliance with the Judgment, the d.
rectCrs of the company adopted a reso.
luton protesting that it had never
knowingly violated II State law, but
that it accepted the conditions of the
decree. and expressed by such resolu-
ton its Willingness to abide by the
same. The court holds that this reso-
luton vas not only a failure to com.
ply with the conditions offered, but
tended to show that the company was
not able OF was not inclined to sever
the trust relations and in fact COM
ply with the conditions Of the decree.
The judgment of custer, therefore, be-
came absolute and unconditional.
A group of Navajo Indians under
the leadership of Bi-a-lil-le threatened
serious trouble on the Navajo reserva.
ton. On the representations Of the
Interior department., the Secretary CT
War sent troops into the vicinity to
serve as a REFRESHING influence on
trcm. The officer in command arrest
ed Bi-a-lil-le and some of his followers.
When the arrest was made. the troops
were fired on by other Indians and the
lire was ISlul lttV. IS AOldlo II d
ed were confined at hard labor for an
indefinite period, on condition that
they could be released whenever 1t
might be deemed wise to do so. In
ex parte Bi-a-lil-le, 100 Pacific Report
err, $50, the Supreme Court of Arizona
reviews the Judgment of the lower
court refusing their discharge on ha-
beas corpus. AS to the contention that
they were prisoners of var and lawful
ly held in military custody, the court
maintains that confinement at hard
labor is a characteristic Of the punish
ment of criminals, and not under the
code of modern civilized warfare ar
incident of the detention of prisoners
of war. Such a sentence was clearly
inconsistent with the theory that they
were regarded as prisoners Of war. 1t
was further urged hat the Indians
we're wards of the government, subject
to administrative correction Of their
| conduct, and that the disposition made
of them was pursuant to a long-settled
| policy. AS to this. the court say that,
however salutary i'll its results and
| desirable such a method of dealing
with recalcitrant Indians may be, 1t
cannot be sanctioned unless Congress
has conferred the authority. No leg
islation was referred to expressly au-
thorizing such summary methods, and
1t was concluded hat the court was
in error in denying the writ Of habeas
corpus.