Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-11-21

70 lA the rates OF transportation ana
the purchase n selling prices which
all these companies should pay and
receive for petroleum and products
throughout the republic and in traffic
with foreign nations.
The principal company n many
subsidiary corporations were then n
still are engaged in interstate and in
ternational commerce, many of them
were capable of competing with each
other in that trade and would have
been actively competitive if they had
been owned by different individuals or
| groups OF individuals.
Thus the principal company in
1898 owned and operated several re-
ftneries in New Jersey. West Virginia
and Maryland, which in the year 1905
had a capacity of 19,S54,000 barrels
of crude oil yearly. The Standard Oil
company of New York, n of the
subsidiary companies, owned and op-
Grated several refineries In the state
of New York which in the year 1906
had a capacity of ~6,732,060 barrels
annually.
In the Northern Securities case,
Hill and Morgan and their associates
acquired control of a majority of the
voting stock of two competitive rail-
road companies, and by means of
that ownership the power to prevent
them from actually competing. This
group of stockholders u%bseuuently
transferred their controlling interest
In the stock of each of these compan-
les TO the Northern Securities COM
pany In exchange for its stock and
the supreme court decided that this
transaction constituted a combination
In restraint of commerce among the
states and affirmed a decree of this |
court which enjoined the continuance
of its operation.
The defendants and their associ- |
ates acquired the control of a major |
ity of the stock of more than thirty
many of which were po-
and naturally competitive, |
the competition by means |
of this ownership and then, by the
transfer OF the stock of nineteen of
them to the principal company, the
control and management of all of
them. If it was a violation of the
act to combine the control
of two competitive corporations in a
third, as in the case of the North
.rn Securities company, why was IL
as much a violation of it to COM
Dine the control of ten or twenty or
hirty of the corporation in one of the
as in the case in hand?
The defendants answer t1). be-
use these corporations We're not
oiiHttit'l6 IN ldu iibt DteH SIIltt
.S79; (2). because the stockholders
II the principal company were the
ONT owners of the stock of the sub
idiarY companies and had the right
o convey their stock in the latter to {
he former in trust for themselves :
nd congress was without power to f
their acquisition, their meth a
d of holding or their disposition of c
title to their property or their :
CO ~ ~ IQh lnnn,Ran tln H~p
ions whose stock was vested in a
gliding company in the Northern Sc
company's case were railway i
ompanies which were charged with
ne discharge of public duties. the S
erformance of which was peculiarly T
object to regulation by the nation
state, while the corporations t
hose stock was vested in the stand a
rd Oil company were private cor f
orations, and, 90, because il any
Of trade resulted from the t
'ust Of 1899 1t was neither direct, G
Immediate nor substantial c
The court here finds against the de- C
on ali these propositions, a
,ntinuing the opinion says: u
THE contention that congress has q
!, power to restrict acquisition. meth II
OF holding title, disposition and @
of property was forcibly urged Il
the attention OF the courts many n
mes in the case of the Northern o.
company, but the answer
it was, as it must be here. hat no =,
Iestion of the mere acquisition or G,
ethod of holding or of disposition Of a.
lie to property was there, or Is here, p,
issue, that the question there was, o.
1t is here, whether a certain meth =,
of holding stocks which control -
veral corporations may be used 10 =;
event competition between them in y
and international trade. -
nd congress has plenary n tndis- -
table power under the commercial p
ause OF the constitution to restrict !,
Id regulate tho use of every instru- -
employed in interstate or ;,
ternational m so far as 1t u
av be necessary to do so in order TO Id
event the restraint thereof de- a.
'unced by the antitrust act of 1890. n
THE power OF congress to regu- q
te interstate and foreign commerce D.
Id the exertion of that power mani
sted in the antitrust act embrace Il
persons and corporations engaged
The mischief against
hich that law was levelled Is not less k
r%eatening from a vast combination Ct
private corporations owning n j.
in interstate I'M foreign COM d.
cree property worth hundreds of a,
Illions of dollars. than from a COM ST
nation Of two railway companies. as
e act makes no distinction between NJ
1t excerpts neither class and
lere congress has made no excep- In
n il is not the province of the
urts to do so. pa
purpose of the act OF July =
30. wa to prevent the sitting and &C
. substantial restriction of COMPETE
n in the interstate and information "A
The test under that act w
the legality of a combination or
is its direct n necessary
Get on such competition, II its
cessary effect is but incidentally or
lirectlv to restrict competition
lie its chief result is to foster the
de and increase the business of Al