The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1909-08-20
Legal Information


The Missouri Supreme Court n
State Ell Inf. Hadley vs.. Standard OIL
Co.. lie Southwestern Exporter, COZ.
1863, eonviets the Standard Of Com
2any. the Watsrs-P Pierce Oil Company.
md the Republic Oil Company Of New
York Of violating the antitrust laws
IT Missouri (Rsv. ct. 1899. G. 143 lam.
st. 1905, Sections eoe5. see21). We
AN only refer to 4 single interesting
,oint ~ to the Watsrs-Pierce OIL Com.
'any. . domestic corporation. A 1udC-
nent Of custer was rendered against
It. but the judgment was ordered sus-
pended on proof that the company had
severed all connection with the other
in maintaining a trust to
control the price Of petroleum, and
would refrain from all such combine
lions. and that 1t would furnish salts
'actory evidence of its compliance with
the judgment, and its intention In
good faith to cease all connection with
he other condemned corporations, and
carry on Its business in obedience to
its charter and the law. In attempted
compliance with the judgment, the d.
.ectors of the company adopted a reso-
luton protesting that it had never
knowingly violated any State law, but
that 1t accepted the conditions of the
iecree, and expressed by such resolu-
ton its willingness to abide by tho
same. The court holds that this reso-
luton was not only failure to COM
ply with the conditions offered, but
:ended to show that the company was
not able or was not inclined to sever
the trust relations and in fact COM
ply with the conditions of the decree.
The Judgment of custer, therefore, b.
came absolute and unconditional.
A group Of Navajo Indians under
he leadership Of Bi-a-lil-le threatened
serious trouble on the Navajo reserva-
Interior Department. the Secretary Of
War sent troops into the vicinity to
serve as depressing influence on
hem. The officer in command arrest
I'd Bi-a-lil-le and some of his followers.
When the arrest was made. the troops
we're fired on by other Indians and the
Ire was returned. The Indians arrest
I'd 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
* parte Bi-a-lil-le, 100 Pacific Report
sr, $50, the Supreme Court of Arizona
reviews the judgment of the lower
court refusing their discharge on ha-
oeas corpus. AS to the contention that
hey were prisoners of war and lawful
ly held in military custody, the court
maintains that confinement at hard
labor Is q characteristic of the punish
ment of criminals. and not under the
code of modern civilized warfare an
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. It
was further urged that 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 long-settled
policy. As to this, the court say that.
however salutary In its results and
desirable such a method of dealing
with recalcitrant Indians may be, 1t
cannot ho sanctioned unless Congress-
has conferred the authority. No leg
Islation was referred to expressly au-
.horizing such summary methods, and
It was concluded that the court was
IN error In denying the writ of habeas
corpus.