Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-11-21
Control Vested in Few.

1888 lHey nave restrained ana are SIltl
restraining that commerce.
Control Vested in Few.
Attention is challenged to the fact that
these defendants constitute only seven Of
about 5000 stockholders Of the principal
company and only seven of its fifteen d.
rectors, and that they own but little more
than one-third of its stock, and 1t is con-
tended that no adequate proof has been
presented that they are or were in 1905,
when the bill was filed. controlling or
directing the operations of the principal
or subsidiary corporations or operating
the stockholding trust of 1899
But third of the stock of a great
corporation when the remainder is scat
tered among thousands of followers and
seven out of fifteen friendly directors may
control a board of directors and cor
poration, and evidence in this case too
voluminous for recitation or review has
convinced that prior to 1879 these seven
defendants combined to secure and OBJ
tanned. control of companies competing In
interstate commerce in oil and suppressed
their competition; that they caused the
formation and execution of the trusts of
1879 and 1882; that they directed and fol-
lowed that unique method Of distributing
the stock held in the latter trust by which
it was not distributed to the majority of
the stockholders for many years after
1892 while they and their associates held
it commanded; that they caused the stock
holding trust of 1899 and that by means
of that trust they still hold the actual
control and direction OF the Standard
tons, and that since 1899 they have been
and still are engaged in carrying into ef-
feet and executing that trust.
"The acts of these and other defendants
prior to July g. 1890, did not violate the
antitrust act of that year because it was
not then in existence. Whether or not
their transactions constituted violation
of the common law is a question much
discussed which it is unnecessary to de-
termine in this case. However that may
be. the acts of the defendants and the ef-
feet OIL their transactions in the conduct
of the oil trade prior to July ., 1890,
which if done thereafter would have con-
stituted a violation of the law of that
date. are competent and material evil
dence of the dominant purpose and the
probable effect Of their similar transac-
tons in that business since that date and
for that purpose they may be considered.
Evidence Of Their Purpose.
Leaving out Of view the acts of the
defendants prior to July 2, 1890. except
as evidence of their purpose, of their
continuing conduct and it's effect, do the
stockholding trust Of 1899 and its con-
tinuing operation constitute an illegal
restraint of interstate or international
commerce in violation of the antitrust
ace Of 1902
THE court here cites long list Of
decisions bearing on the formation or
an association to determine their rates
Of transportation" naming corporations
declared illegal by this law.
Corporations as Persons.
I'm the construction and enforcement
of this statute corporations are persons
they are legal entities distinct from their
stockholders, and the combination Of two
or more of them in restraint Of trade Is
as unlawful as the combination OF in
dividuals.
by the trust of 1899 more than thirty
corporations were combined with the
principal company, and that corporation
was given the power to fix the rates
of transportation and the purchase and
selling prices which. all these companies
should pay and receive for petroleum
and it's products throughout the repub-
lie and in the traffic with foreign ma
tons" a =
IF it was violation Of the antitrust
act to combine the control Of competitive
corporations in third in the case OF
the Northern Securities Company, why
was 1t not as much violation of it to
combine the control of ten or twenty or
thirty of the corporations in one of their
"The defendants answer % because
these corporations were not competitors
and had not been such since 1879. ca be-
cause the stockholders OF the principal
company were the joint owners of the
stock of the subsidiary companies and
had the right to convey their stock in
the latter to the former in trust for them
selves, and Congress was without power
to restrict their acquisition, their meth
cd of holding or their disposition Of their
title to their property or their use OF it,
CD because the corporations whose stock
was vested in holding company in the
Northern Securities Companys case was
railway companies which We're charged
with the discharge of public duties their
performance of which was peculiarly SUBJ
ject to regulation by the nation and the
state while the corporations whose stock
was vested in the Standard Oil COMPANY
in this case were private corporation, and
a. because if any restraint OF trade re-
suited from the trust Of 1909 it was
neither direct, immediate nor substantial ;"
The court here finds against the de-
PENDANTS on all those propositions.
Congress Power to Restrict.
Continuing, the opinion says:
THE contention that Congress has no
power to restrict the acquisition. the
method of holding the title. the DISPOSE
ton and the use of property. was forcibly
urged upon the attention of The courts
in many forms in the case of the North
ern Securities COmDany. but the answer