Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-02-24
DECISION ON TRUSTS
Supreme Court to Wait for Oil
Company's Arguments.
WILL BE HEARD MARCH IA
Ruling Then to Be Given in Stand
ard and American Tobacco Cases.
SOME POINTS OF SIMILARITY
Lawyers Are Of Opinion That Entire
Range Of Modern Industrial Or
CARNATIONS Is Involved.
WILL BE HEARD MARCH ID
SOME POINTS OF SIMILARITY

States has NouchSafed no lntlHldtlOn OH
the subject, it is generally supposed here
tnat the decision in the case of the Ameri-
can Tobacco Company. which already has
been argued before the court. will not be
landed down at least until after the ar
gurnent in the case OF the Standard O1l
company. which is set for March IA At
.urney General Wickershanl. in his motion
. advance the hearing of the latter case,
described the two as essentially kindred.
md suggested to the court that they be
considered together.
Lawyers here generally concur in the
statement made by Mr.. Wickersham to
the court that these two cases together
present for its consideration practically
the entire range of modern industrial or
sanizatior1s In this country" and substan-
TALLY every feature of the trust ques-
ton, tar 1T falls within the pur-
view of the Sherman antitrust law. Yet
they are not precisely alike; indeed, il is
said that in some particulars they are so
uisslmilar that the court might find in
favor of the government in one case, and
against ii in the other.
Neither Criminal Action.
The two cases are alike in that they
proceedings III equity TO enjoin AL
legged violations OF the law of the land
heither is i'll its essence criminal ac-
ton. in neither does the government
seek 10 procure either Imprisonment of
individuals or exemplary fines upon the
Cetendants. In botn suits the charges
pressed are those alleging unlawful COM
Citation and conspiracy in restraint of
interstate trade and commerce, and con-
i'nuing monopoly or attempted monopoly,
of important elements i'll interstate COM
nercS.
The Standard Oil Company of New Jer-
attacked a
Out Ct its 100000, 600 capital stock more
than s9I.NO,CO was exchanged in 1892
according TO the government figures, for
stock in nineteen other corporations en-
Saged IN the various branches of the pc
IroIetITn business
The American Tobacco Company is al
legged TO be both a holding and an op-
eldting company 1t is actively engaged
in the tobacco business, owns it's own
shops and sells the manufactured prod
ucts In. the case of the Standard Oil
Company tine raw product is to an eX-
tent produced by the corporation in that |
IF the tobacco combination the raw ma
tcIidl is purcha Sed.
In Restraint of Trade.
While the Sherman law does not spe-
cihcally prohibit the organization Of
holding companies, the Supreme Court
declared in the Northern Securities case
that the holding company constituted an
organization in restraint OF trade and
commerce.
The government charges that from the
time Of the organization CT the Standard
OiI Company in 1899 a monopoly was
obtained. that. in fact, for years prior
10 that a virtual monopoly had existed.
and that the various forms which the
conspiracy alleged against the oil COM
pany has taken have been merely adapta-
lions. to the changing needs and condi-
tons or the times.
Control of Business Dwindled.
in the tobacco case it is alleged that
Originally. when the merger was consum-
sested in 1890 there was monopoly only
In the cigarette trade; the defendants
claim that the control of the business
ihen secured has since materially dwin-
died.
The Standard Oils counsel has con-
iEnded that the corporations which in
tSss' entered into the agreements. COM
piained of had long since ceased to be
competitors. In the tobacco case the de-
PENDANTS contend that their acts have
been confined merely TO the acquisition OF
manufacturing property; that nlanufac-
tUring corporations are under no legal
obligation 10 eompete-the prohibition
Being against specific agreements to sup
press competition. Non-competition as
the result of the acquisition of property
is, the defendants insist. not a. violation
of the statute.
Another difference between the two
cases lies in the fact that the Standar I'd
OIL Company is charged with offense
against the Sherman law alone: the to-
bacco corporations are charged with Of
lending also the Wilson tariff act of
1891, which extended the application of
the antitrust law to any conspiracy I'm
restraint of trade one party to which
MAS All importer. Furthermore, the gov
eminent is seeking to establish the rule
that corporation entering into an agree |
ment abroad which in purpose conflicts
with American law gains no immunity
from the fact that such an agreement
IS lawful III the foreign country.
Necessaries of Life
1t is suggested that the commodities
handled by the Standard Oil Company
may be more properly called 'neces- |
saries of life than those dealt in by |
the tobacco corporations.
Attorney General Wickersham in his |
argument of the tocacco case expressed |
the opinion that different element would |
enter into the trade in an absolute neces- |
sity OF life. as distinguished from one |
that was not a necessity.
AS the result OF the hearing in the |
circuit courts, other differences were |
either made or became apparent. |
In the tobacco suit, the court did not /
find sufficient evidence to hold that there |
was a monopoly in the trade in question |
although IL did hold that there was a |
combination in restraint Of trade. In the |
Standard Oil case, the court was /
unanimous in finding that there was an /
illegal monopoly. in addition to there |