The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-19
TEXAS WINS
 ITS OIL CASE Waters-Pierce Company Must Pay. THE PENALTY IS Sl,613,soo Supreme Court Affirms the Lower
 Court. Violated the Anti-Trust Law of State. Justice Day Says Fine Is
 Heavy Bst Court |.

Washington. Jan. 1s.-The supreme court of the United States today af- | firmed the decree of the state courts lof Texas imposing a fine of s1,s23,o00 on the watefs-Pierce oil Company of St. Louis, and ousting 1t from the state on the charge of violating the Texas antitrust law.
 | The action was begun in the State courts under the State antitrust laws and Msulted in a verdict directing the cancellation of the company's permit to do business in the State and fixing penalty of s1,s2s.so0 for the viola ton of the laws from the time that the permit was issued on May 31, 1900. until April 2i. 1s07 when the action was begun.
 The bill charged that the company had violated the States laws every day since 1t had entered the State through conspiracy with the Stand- ard oif Company of New Jersey to control the oil business in Texas but the company denied the charge and In addition said that if 1t violated the law 1t was not amenabIe. because the busipess transacted was of an inter- state character and therefore subject only to control by the United States authorities.
 The penalty was at the rate of S1,- 50o per day from May 31, 1900, to April l. 1908, and at the rate of $50 per day from that time on. The case came to the Supreme Court on a writ of error from the final decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third JudiciaI Circuit of Texas by which the verdict of the trial court, the Dis- trict Court of Travis county. was sus- tained.
 | Justice Day announced the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the | finding of the Texas court.
 The case turned on the point as to whether the proceedings of the state against the company had been in &C., cordance with the constitutional re- | quirement for due process of law and the court held that such was the case. While regarding the fine as very large. Justice Days opinion held that I 1t was competent to impose 1t
 The court also sustained the action | Of the Texas State courts in the ap- | pointment of Robert J Eckhart as re- l celver and thus again decided against the company. which sought to have sustained the action of the Federal court in appointing c. B. DorCh ester at the instance of the company. The decision in all the cases were unani- nous.
 | The NeeeAveEDkfp Cases.
 One of the receivershIp cases came to the court op q writ of error from ftiie supreme Jlidicfal Distfict Court of the United States. and tfie other from the United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit, in both of which courts the decisions were favor able to the State.
 Robert ] Eckhardt was appointed ] receiver by the Travis County State Court on the theory that such appoint ment was necessary to preserve the property of the company until the pen alty imposed could be collected. r 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 of the State. H. Clay Pierce and B. w., Palmer, both stockholders in the company, undertook to secure the 1 appointment of a receiver of their own selection by the United States Circuit 1 Court for the Eastern District of Tex as, and while that court responded to their prayer by making such an ap- pointment, its decision was oYerruled by the United States Court of Appeals and 1t was because of this latter de- cisiop 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 decisions of the two cases being te completely endorse the State courts in the selection of receiver.
 The principal opinion in the eases
 was handed down in the custer case involving the fine imposed by the State courts dealing with the contention thai the alleged conspiracy between the I Waters Pierce Company and the Stand 1 n rd 0fl Cnnananv n control the nricA nl oil in Texas was outside the State oi Texas, and therefore not within the Ju- risdiction of the Texas courts. Jus tice Day said that the agreement had been executed within the State. The circumstances he said was conclusive with the court that the conviction was had for acts inside the States borders
 On the point that the proceedings of the State against the company had not been a due process of law, the court held:
 "That the State Legislatures have the right to deal with the subject mat ter and prevent unlawful combinations to prevent competition and in restraint of trade and to prohibit and punish monopolies Is not open to question Having the power to pass laws of this l character, of course. the State may provide for proceedings to enforce the \ same.
 ' "The State, keeping within consLi- ] tutional Limitations. may provide It's | own method of procedure and deter 1 mine the methods and means by which such laws may be made enectual. We l are not prepared to say that there was . deprivation of due process of law be- l cause the statute permitted and the court charged. that there might be a | conviction not only for acts which &C., cofnplish the prohibited result but also | for those which tend or are reasonably calculated to bring about the things | forbidden"
 j Justice Day also discussed the con. l tention that the fines imposed were | excessive, saying that the business done in Texas by the company was l very extensive and highly profitable the property amounting to more than S4O, ,0OO. 900, and it's dividends as high as 700 per cent. per annum.
 Assuming" he said, 'that the de- fendant was guilty of violation of 1 laws over a period of years and in transacting business upon so large a l scale, we are not prepared to say that I there was want of due process of la " in the penalties imposed"
 Il Counsel is Retieent
 St. Louis. Mo. Jan. l7.-J. D. Johnson, general attorney for thu waters-Pierce Oil Company, and ont of the associate counsel in the Texai suit. declined to discuss the decision
 "The Associated Press dispatch |, the first information which I have haC on this matter" he said. "ObviouslS l I am not prepared to discuss it.