The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-21
Continued from Page Ono.


States circuit court Of appeals, al
though they were sitting for the pur-
pose Of trying this case as the circuit
court for tho eastern district of Mis-.
souri,.
The decree Of the court dissolving
the Standard Oil trust becomes effect
i've in thirty days, when no doubt
stay Will be granted for the purpose of
an appeal.
When the decree takes effect, unless
a stay is granted. an injunction will is.
sue restraining the Standard Oil COM
pany from further continuance Of its
business under its present formation.
Sweeping Decision.
IL appears from the coucurriug opin-
ion written by Judge Hook that The
company cannot do business under any
other form with the object Of sitting
competition. for he says on this sub
iect that it is thought that with the
end of the combination the monopoly
will naturally disappear, but should it
not do so, any and all Of the members Of
the combination, except one who might
pcrpetuatc the monopoly by aggregation
of the physical properties and instru-
mentalitics. il would constitute vio.
lation of the decree of the court
In the trial the point was made that
tho Standard Oil company was bene.
licent corporation in that it, by reason
of economy in operation, reduced the
price of its product This Judge Hook
says can have no weight
Litigation for Years.
The suit was begun by direction Of
the federal attorney general in st. Louis,
November 10, 1906, Frank b. Kellogg
of st. Paul, was appointed special pros
ecutor. assisted by Charles NJ. Morrison
Of Chicago, Frank II Pool and j. II.
Graves. Of the department. of justice;
W. r. Higgins of Minneapolis, and c,
A. SeVerencc of 81. Paul.
The Standard Oil company presented
formidable array Of legal talent led
by John c. Milburn Of New York. Their
defense was that tho present organiZa
tion of the STANDARD corporation was the
result of the natural growth Of a great
industry and that no statute had been
violated.
Kellogg of St Paul and Charles b.
Morrison of Chicago. for the United
States. and John G.. Milburn of Buf.
falo, David T. Watson of Pittsburg.
Montz Roscnthal Of Chicago and John
G.. Johnson Of Philadelphia, on behalf
of the defendants.
1t was brought to cnioin John n.
Rockefeller, William Rockefeller. Henry
NJ. Flagler. Henry II Rogers. John ID.
.NlNHpOl'l, oIlNfI II dN NJ, I NudIltH ". .
Pratt, the Standard Oil compesS of
New Jersey and about seventy other
corporations from maintaining a combi-
nation and conspiracy In restraint of
trade, TO monopohze interstate and IN
ternational commerce, and the decree
grants the injunction sought by the
government.
The case is one of tho most notable
in the history Of the national govern
,,,s % -, mt glNtc
trial and legal questions and the vast
financial interests it involves. The evi-
dence filed twenty-one volumes and oc-
cupied more than 10000 printed pages,
and the arguments of counsel more
than 300 printed pages.
The nature of the case and the char.
acter of the decision appear from the
syllabus OF Judge Sanborn S opinion,
which reads;
Syllabus Of Courts Opinion,
Congress has power, under the
commercial clause of the constitution,
to regulate and restrict the use in com
merce among the several states and
with foreign nations of contracts, OF
the method of holding title TO property
and of every other instrumentality en-
ployed in that commerce so far as il
may be necessary TO do so in order TO
prevent the restraint thereof contem-
plated by the antitrust act of July 2
1890 (25 statutes. 209).
"Tcst of the legality Of combi-
nation under this act is its neces.
sary effect upon competition in com
merce among the states or with for
eign nations.
of its necessary effect is only IN
cidentally or indirectly to restrict that
competition. while IFS chief result is TO
foster the trade and increase the busl-
ness of those who make and operate IT.
it does not violate that law.
"But if its necessary effect is to
stihe or directly and substantially 10
restrict free competition in commerce
among the states or with foreign ma.
tions it is illegal within the meaning
of that statute.
Restricting Competition.
"The power to restrict competition
in commerce among the several states
or with foreign nations, vested in q
person or an association of persons by
combination. is indicative of the
character of the combination because
it is to the interest Of the parties that
such a power should be exercised and
the presumption is that it will be.
''The combination in a single corpo,
ration or person, By an exchange of
stock. of the power Of many stock
respectively. Of the majority of the
stock of each Of the several corpora.
tions engaged in commerce in the same
articles among the states, or with for
eign nations, to restrict competition
therein, renders the power thus vested
in the former greater, more easily ex-
erclsed, more durable and moro cf~
fective than that previously held by
the stockholders, and it is illegal
"ln 1889 the stockholders of the
Standard Oil company Of New Jersey
owned a majority of the stock of nine
teen other corporations in the same
proportions that they owned the stock
of the Standard company. and those
twenty corporations controlled. by the
ownership OF the majority of their
stock or otherwise, many other corpo-
ratjoDs.
Each Of these corporations was en-
gagged in some part of the business OF
producing, buying, refining, transport
ing and selling petroleum and It's prod
ucts in this country.
"Many of them were engaged in
commerce in these articles among the
several states and with foreign ma.
tions, and were naturally competitive,
m