The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-01-19
WatBrs-PierC8 Company OusBd From State and Must
 Pay Big Sum
SUPREME COURT BACKS
 UP THE STATE COURT
Oil Company Must Pay the Sum of $1,623,900 for Violating Laws of Texas and Lose Right to
 Carry On Business.

Washington, January 1s.-The supreme court of the United States today affirmed the decree of the state courts of Texas imposing a fine of s, ,62S, 300 on the Waters Pierce oil company of St. Louis and oust- ing it from the state on the charge of vio- lating the Texas antitrust law.
 The action was begun in the state courts under the state antitrust laws and re- suited in a verdict directing the cancel lation of the companys permit to do busi- ness in the state and fixing a penalty of $1, ,62S, 300 for the violation of the laws from the time the permit was issued on May S1, 19OO until April 24, 1907, when the action was begun The bill charged that the company had violated the states law every day since 1t had entered the state through a conspiracy with the Standard oil company of New Jersey to control the oil business in Texas, but the com- pany denied the charge, and in addition said that if it violated the law 1t was not amenable because the business transacted was of an interstate character and there
 
 ted States authorities.
 The penalty was at the rate of s1.50 per day from May 31, 1900, to April l. 1903, and at the rate of $50 per day from that time on. The case came to the supreme court on writ of error from the final decision of the circuit court of appeals for the Third judicial district of Texas by the verdict of the trial court, the district court of Travis county was sustained. Jus tice Day announced the decision for the supreme court affirming the finding of the Texas court.
 Case Turns On Process.
 The case turned on the point as to whether the proceedings of the state 1 against the company had been in accord- ance with the constitutional requirement. for due process of law, and the court held that such was the case While re- garding the fine as very large, Justice Days opinion held that it was competent to impose it.
 The court also sustained the action Of the Texas state courts in the appointment of Robert Eckert receiver and thus again decided against the company which sought to have sustained the action or the federal court in appointing C. B. Dorehes- ter at the instance of the company. The decisions in all the cases were unanl- nous.
 Writ of Error.
 One of the recevership cases came to tho court on a writ of error from the su- nrene judicial district court of the Uni ted States and the other rom the uni ted states circuit court of appeals TOT the Fifth circuit, in both of which courts the decisions were favorable to the state.
 Robert F. Eckhardt was appointed ny the Travis county state court on the theory that such appointment was neces- sary to preserve the property of the com panv until the penalty imposed could be collected.
 The action of the Travis county court was affirmed by the Texas court of civil appeals, but before 1t could be further appealed to the supreme court or the state, H. Clay Pierce and B. w. Palmer, both stockholders in the company, under took to secure the appointment of re- ceiver of their own selection by the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Texas and while that court respond ed to their prayer by making such an appointment, and 1t was because or this latter decision that the company brought the case to the supreme court of the United States
 The finding of the court of appeals In this case was affirmed by Justice Days decision the general effect in the decis- ions of the two cases being to completely indorse the state courts in the selection of a receiver. The principal opinion in the cases was handed down in the custer case involving the fine imposed by the state courts dealing with the contention that the alleged conspiracy between the Wa Pierce company and the Standard company to control the price of oil In Texas was outside the state of Texas, and therefore, not within the jurisdic- tion of the Texas courts, Justice Day said that the agreement had been ex- ecuted within the state. The crcum- stance. he said, was conclusive with the court that the conviction was had for acts inside the states border
 Unlawful Combinations.
 On the point that the proceedings of the state against the company had not been a due process of law, the court held
 That state legislatures have the right to deal with the subject matter and pre- vent unla wful combinations to prevent competition and in restraint of trade and to prohibit and punish rnonopoles is not open to question. Having the power to pass laws of this character, of course. the state may provide for proceedings to enforce the same. The state, keeping within constitutional limitations may provide It's own method of procedure and determine the methods and means by which such laws may be made effect ual We are not prepared to say that there was a deprivation of due process of law because the statute permitted and the court charged that there might be a conviction not only for acts which accom- plished the prohibited result, but also for those which tend or are reasonably cal- culated to bring about the things forbid den"
 Justice Day also discussed the conten- tion that the fines imposed were exces- sive saying that the business done in Texas by the company was very extensive and highly profitable, the property amounting to more than s40.0o0 0O0 and its dividends as high as 700 per cent per an- num- Assuming" he said. that the de-