The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-21

trust for the stockholders Of the Stand
ard company Of Ohio, and from 1892 |
until 1899 they accomplished the same
result of a similar stockholding device
by the joint equitable ownership OF the
majority Of the stocks Of the corpora"
tions.
New Jersey Company Controls.
"Tn the year 1899. the seven indi-
vidual defendants and their associates
caused the majority of the stock of the
nineteen corporations TO be transferred
to the STANDARD Oil company of New
Jersey in exchange for its stock, so that
tho latter company thereby acquired
the legal title TO n majority of the stock
Of each Of the nineteen companies the
control Of these companies and of all
the companies which they controlled
and the power to fix the rates of trans.
portatlon, the purchase and selling
price Of petroleum and its products
which all these corporations should pay
and receive in tho conduct of their
business IN commerce among the states
and with foreign nations.
''Sinco that exchange Of stock the
seven individual defendants have been
and are stockholders and officers of the
Standard Oil company Of New Jersey,
which has exercised and is still using
that power, and by its use has pre-.
vented and is still preventing compe-
ttiOn in commerce among the states
and with foreign nations among the
corporations.
Held Illegal Combination.
"Hcld;
'Tbe transaction constituted a com.
bination and conspiracy in restraint OF
and go mOuopolIzc commerce among the
states and with foreign nations in vic.
latlon of sections / and of the anti
trust act of July 2, 1890 and the gov
ernment is entitled TO I'm injunction
against the further continuance and
operation thereof -
The decree cuioins the seven indi.
yidual defendants, the Standard OIL
company and its subsidiary corpora
tionS, from continuing or carrying INTO
effect the illegal combination they have
formed, and from entering into any
like combination or conspiracy tie ef-
feet of which Will be TO restrain in
terstate commerce in petroleum, OF its
products, or 10 prolong the unlawful
monopoly Of such commerce obtained
by the defendants as stated in the de-
cree. and they are forbidden from en-
gaging or continuing in interstate com
merce until they discontinue their H.
legal combination.
The decree takes effect thirty days
from the date of it's fling. unless sus-
pended by an appeal to the supreme
court.
Judge Sanborn in his opinion says:
Statement of the Case.
"This is n suit brought by the
United States to enjoin the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey, corpo-
ration. about seventy subsidiary cor
porations and seven indlvldua! de,
PENDANTS. from continuing an illegal
combination in restraint of commerce
among the several states, in the DIS,
trict Of Columbia, in the territories and
with foreign nations in violation of the
sherman antitrust act Of July 2, 1890,
26 statutes, 2O9.
"The provisions Of that act perti-
nent TO the issues in this case are:
"Section /. Every contract, combi~
nation in the form Of trust or other
wise, or conspiracy, In restraint OF trade
or commerce among the several states,
or with foreign nations, is hereby de-
clared to be illegal. =,
"Scction .. Every person who shall
monopoliZe or attempt to monopolizes
or combine or consplre with any other
person or persons to monopolize any
part of trnde or commerce among the
several states, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of mlsde-
meanor.
"Section 3. The word person or per
sons wherever used in this act shall be
deemed to include corporations and as
sociations.
Precedents for Decision.
"Repeated decisions of the purpose
and the meaning of this act have estab,
lshed by controlling authority beyond
doubt in this tribunal these pertinent
rules for It's Interpretation and app!l-
cation TO the facts of the case. The
test of legality Of a contract or com
bination under this act is its direct
and necessary effect upon competition
IN interstate or international commerce.
II the necessary effect of contract,
combination or conspiracy IS 10 stlne'
or directly and substantially to restrict,
free competition in commerce among
the states or with foreign nations, 1t
is a contract, combination or conspiracy
in restraint of that trade. and 1t vlo-
lates this law. The parties to 1t are
presumed to intend the inevitable re-
suit of their acts and neither their &C,
tual intent nor the rcasonableness OF
the restraint imposed may withdraw
it from the denunclatlon OF the stat"
ute.
"The exchange of the stock or shares
in the ownership of competitive organl-
zatious engaged In interstate or inter
national commerce for stock or share
ownership of single corporation, the
necessary effect or WHO MS ulreCt
and substantial restriction of competi'
tion on that commerce constitutes
combination in restraint of commerce
among the states or with foreign ma
tions that is declared illegal by this
lau
.fThe business of the defendants is
the production and the purchase of
petroleum, its storage, its transporta-
ton from the producing wells to rein
cries, the refining Of this oil and the
transportation and sale of its products
to purchasers in this and other coun-
tries
History of the Case.
The court here inserts a history of
the formation of the Standard Oil com
pany, beginning in 1865, when John d.
Rockefeller owned a refinery In Cleve-
land, o.. and later absorbed by its
successors in 1870, the Standard Oil
company of Ohio, with a capital of
81 900 900 The opinion continues:
Between the organization of that
FA ESl29 e %
~nnrrNrN'c ccCIrC TAlk