The Montana plaindealer. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1906-1911, 1909-11-26

Inc united states circuit court mas
ordered the corporation to be dissolved
as being illegal.
After a recital of the facts brought
out in the trial the court says:
Constitutes Illegal Combination.
"Held: The transaction constituted
a combination and conspiracy in re-
~straint of and to monopolize com
r.erce among the states and with for
eign nations in violation of sections
l and 2 of the antitrust act of July
2, 1890, and the government is en-
titled to an injunction against the
further continuance and operation
thereof"
The decree e~njoins the seven indi-
vidual defendants, the Standard Oil
company, and its subsidiary corpora
lions, from continuing or carrying
into effect the illegal combination they
have formed, and from entering into
any like combination or conspiracy the
effect of which will be to restrain in
t~erstate in petroleum or it's
products, or 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
illegal combination.
History of Case,
This case was heard in the United
States circuit court at st. Louis in
April last by Circuit JUDGES Sanborn,
Vandeventer of Cheyenne. Hook of
L~eavenworth and Adams of st. Louis.
Judge Sanborn, the presiding Judge,
wrote the opinion and the decree, in
which all the judges concurred, and
sent them to Judge Adams at st.
Louis, who filed them and entered the
decree in that city this morning.
The case was argued by Frank B.
Kellogg of st. Paul and Charles B.
Morrison of Chicago for the United
States, and John d. Milburn of Buff.
falo, David T. Watson of Pittsburg,
Moritz Rosenthal of Chicago and John
G. johnson of Philadelphia, on behalf
of the defendants.
The suit was brought to %enjOin John
ID. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller,
Henry M. Flagler, H. H. Rogers, John
d. Archibold, Oliver H. Payne, Charles
M. Pratt, the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey, and about 20 other cor
porations from maintaining a combi-
nation and conspiracy in restraint of
trade, to monopolize interstate and
commerce, and the de-
cree grants the injunction sought by
the government.
Vast Interests Involved.
The case is one of the most notable
the history of the national govern
on account of the important in
and legal questions, and the
vast financial interests it involves.
The evidence filed 81 volumes and oc-
cupied more than 10000 printed pages,
and the arguments of counsel more
than 300 printed pages. !
The nature of the case and the char {
acter of the decision appear from the !
the power to fix the rates of trans ,
oortation, the purchase and selling !
price of petroleum and it's products
which all of these corporations should
pay and receive in the conduct of their C
business in commerce among the states b
Ind with foreign nations. f
"Since that exchange of stock the
even individual defendants have been o
are stockholders and officers of !
ne STANDARD company of New jersey, ,
Which exercised and. is still using that h
'ower, and by its use it has prevented
nd is still preventing competition in "
among the states and with P
orelgn nations among the corpora IL
OIL Trust Case In Brief.
The Standard Oil company was Il
rganized in 1870. C
In 1872 it began purchasing other 9
.efneries. :"
AIleged by government first rebates
aid in 1872. In 1879 a secret trust
greement was made according to the r
Overnment. Z
In 1882 the Standard Oil trust was I
ormed, the stock of the company be- a
ng turned over to the trustees to h
manage the business, the trustees man.
ged about 40 companies. q
In 1892 the trust was dissolved bv
he order of the supreme court of Il
mo. At the time it is alleged to Is
ave held 11s companies. Government
iieges tho trust secretly continued un-
j 1899. =,
T. Nnnn - ~
In 1899 Standard Oil company of
Jersey recognized as a holding
ompany.
Dissolution suit fled November 1s,
9oe, in st. Louis. y.
franklin Ferris appointed special ex- pr
miner to take testimony June 25, 1907. CT
hearings February, 1909. ell
case argued before judges of the sh
nnhTh IIHnAA1 A.