New-York tribune., 1909-01-19
GUSTS WATERS-PIERCE
81 ,6a3, 300 FINE UPHELD.
Z. S. Supreme Court AHrms De
cisiOns of Teras Tribunals.

Washington. Jan. 1S-The Supreme Court Of the
United States to-day affirmed the decree OF tne
state courts of Texas imposing fine OIL sl,oIo'SO'
on the Waters-Pierce OIL Company, OF 81 LT'uiS
and ousting 1t from the state on the chaIee VI
violating the Texas antitrust law.
The court also sustained the action of the Texas
courts in the appointment of Robert J. Eckharce
as receiver. and thus again decided against the
company, which sought TO have the action OF the
federal court In appointing c. B. Dorchester at 'ne
instance of the company, sustained The decisohS
in all the were unanimous
The action begun in the Texas courts unuer
the state antitrust laws. and resulted in YER
dict directing the cancellation of the company
permit to business in the state and hNlng
penalty Of s623 900 for the violation of the laws
from the time the permit issued on May 81
1900 until April "a 1907 when the action was begun
The bill charged that the company had violated
the states laws every day since it had entered 'he
state through a conspiracy with the Standard on
Company of New Jersey to control the oil business
in Texas but the company denied the charge and
contended that even If 1t had violated the law, It
was not anenabie. because the business transacted
was of interstate character. and therefore SUD-
ject only control by the United States author-
ties The penalty was at the rate of $3.50 day
from Nav 81 1900 to April l. 1903. at the rate
of $50 a day from that time on. The case came 10
the Supreme Court on a writ of error from ihe
final decision of the Circuit Court Of Appeals for
the Sd Judicial District of Texas, by which the YER
County, was sustained. Justice. Day announced
the decision of the Supreme Court. affirming the
finding of the Texas court.
The case turned the point as TO whether the
proceedings Of the state against the company had
been in accordance with the constitutional require
ment for due process Of law and the court held
that such was the While regarding the fine
large. Justice Days opinion held that 1t was
competent to impose it.
One of the receivership cases came 10 the court on
yJfNio Court of
Texas the other from the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals the 5th Circuit, in both ot
which the decisions were favorable 10 the state
Robert J. Eckhardt appointed receiver by the
Travis County Court the theory that such ap
pointment necessary TO preserve the property
of the company until the penalty imposed could be
collected
The action Of the Travis County Court af-
frIned by the Texas Court Of Civil Appeals. hut
before it could be further appealed to the Supreme
Court OF the state H. Clay Pierce and B. NJ Palmer.
both stockholders in the company. undertook to
obtain the appointment of receiver of their own
selection by the States Circuit for the
Eastern District OF Texas and, while that court
responded TO their prayer by making such an ap-
pointnent. its decision overruled by the
United States Court of Appeals. and II because
Of this latter decision that the company brought
the to the Supreme Court Of the United States.
The finding Of the Court of Appeals affirmed
by Justice Days decision, the general effect in the
decisions Of the being completely
ndorse the state courts in the selection of
cever.
The principal opinion in the cases was handed
down in the case involving the fine imposed
by the courts.
Dealing with the contention that the alleged con-
spiracy between the Waters-Pierce company and
the Standard company 10 control the price of oil
in Texas was outside the State Of Texas and
therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Texas
courts, Justice Day said that the agreement had
been executed within the state This circumstance
was. he said. conclusive with the court that the
conviction for acts inside the borders.
On the point that the proceeding OF the state
against the company had not been a due process
Of law. the court held that the state legislatures
have a right deal with the subject matter and
TO prevent unlawful combina tions in restraint
trade and TO prohibit and punish monopolies which
is not open to question. Having the power pass
laws Of this character of course the state may
provide its own method Of procedure and determine
the methods and means by which such laws may
be made effectuaI We are not prepared" he
said. to say that there a deprivation OF due
process of law the statute permitted and
the court charged that there might be a conviction
only for acts which accomplished the prohibited
result but also for those which tend reason
ably calculated to bring about the things for
bidden."
Justice Day also discussed the contention that the
fines imposed were excessive saying that the busi
done in Texas by the company very ex-
ing more than s4OcoOO00 and It's dividends as
high zoo per cent year. Assuming he said
that the defendant guilty of a violation OF
laws period of years and in transacting
business upon large a scale, pre-
pared to say THAI there want of due process
OF law in the penalties imposed"
Austin, Tex. Jan. 18.-The announcement Of the
triumph the state in its litigation with the
waters-Pieroe Oil Company joyfully received
by the states attorneys. The Attorney General
said:
IT am very much gratifed over the results Of
this suit tremendous victory for the people
Law must triumph wrong; the strong must
yield 10 the force that the weak are com
PEELED TO obey We have fought the hardest legal
battle in the history of the state, and every one
on whom responsibility has rested has discharged
his full duty
What effect the decision will have the trial
of H Clay Pierce in this city next month Is not
known but il is generally understood and suggested
that this give the state prosecution far more
backbone than a reversal would have given