Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-02-24
SAME ISSUES ARE INVOLVED
Standard Company Will Present Its
z Arguments March IA.
COVERS ALL TRUST QUESTIONS
Range Of Modern Industrial 0rgani'
cation Embraced in These Cases.
SOME POINTS OF DIFFERENCE
One Attorney Holds that Decision May
BE Against Government in ore
Case nnd in Favor of II
in the other.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23,-whne the su-
pfeme court Of the United States has
vouchsafed no iEtimaHon on the subject,
It is generally supposed here that the
decision in the case Of the American To
kbacco company, which has already been
targued before the court, win not be handed
down, at least until after the argument
In the case OF the Standard oil company,
which is set for March H. Attorney Cen
era Wickersham, in his motion to advance
the hearing Of the latter case, described
the two as essentially Kindred and sug-
gested 10 the court that they be consid-
cred together.
Lawyers here generally concur in the
statement made by Mr.. Wickersham to the
court, that these two cases together pre-
sent for It's consideration practically the
entire range of modern Industrial organ
izations In this country" and substan-
italy every feature Of the trust question:
so far as It falls within the purview OF
the Sherman antitrust law. Yet, they are
not precisely alike; indeed, 1t Is said that
in some particulars they are so dissina-
liar that the court might find n favor of
the government in one case. and against
II n the other.
Points of Likeness.
the two cases are alike in that they
are proceedings in equity to enjoln alleged
violations of the law OF the land-neither
is In It's essence a crinina action In
neither does the government seek to pro-
cure either imprisonment Of individuals
or exemplary fines upon the defendants.
In both SUITS the charges pressed are those
alleging unlawful combination and conspir-
acy in restraint OF Interstate trade and
commerce. and continuing monopoly, or at
tempted monopoly. Of important elements
in interstate commerce
The Standard OH company Of New Jersey
is attacked as "hoiding company" out
Of its s1000o0,0Oo capital stock over S57, ,000
900 was exchanged in 1893, according 10
the government figures. for stock In nine
teen other corporations. engaged In the
various branches Of the petroleum bus
ness.
9tfe American Tobacco company is al,
, legged 70 be both a holding and an operat-
ing company. It is actively engaged in the
tobacco business. runs its own shops and
sells the manufactured products. In the
case OF the Standard OIL company. the raw
product is TO an extent produced by the
corporation in that of the tobacco com
bination the raw material Isl purchased.
While the Sherman law does not speclfi-
cally prohibit the organization Of holding
companies, the supreme court declared
In the Northern Securities case that the
holding company constituted an organiza-
tion in restraint Of trade and commerce.
Charges in OIL Case.
The government charges that from the
Ina anN
on company In 1859 monopoly was oh
tanned; that in fact for years prior to that
a virtual monopoly existed had existed
and that the various forms which the CON
spiiacy alleged against the oil companv
has taken, have been merely adaptations
to Sne ohrHging needs and conditions OF
the times
In the tobacco case, II Is alleged that
originally when the merger was eonsun-
mated in 1890 there was a monopoly only
NR the cigarette trade; the defendants
claim that the controi of the business then
secured has since materially dwinaled
The Standard oil company's counsel
have oontended that the cornorations
which IN 1899 entered into the agreeme,'ts
complained OF had long since ceased 10 he
competitors. In the tobacco case the de-
fendants contend that their acts have been
SpiiIiheo merely to the acquisition of man
aeturing property; that Misunderstanding
Corporations are under no LEGAL obIigat,oo
20 compete-the prohibition being ngaInst
specific agreements to suppress competi-
uoni nYncompetifion as the result OF the
aeeuisition OF property is, the defendants
insist not violation OF the statute.
difference in Charges.
Another difference between the two
lies In g. a.
company Is charged with offense arainst
the sherman law alone; the tobacco cor
poratons are charged with offending also
the wilson tariff act OF 1894, whic hey
= tenaea the application OF the anti-trust
law 20 any conspiracy In restraint Of
trade, one party to which was an inn
porter, Furthermore, the goyerhment A.
seeking 20 establish the rule that A COR
poration entering into an agreement
abroad which In purpose conflicts with
American law, gains no immunity from
in the ofreign country.
II IS suggested that the commodtttss
handled BY the sthnaard OIL company MAJ,
be more properly called @necesspriss -
life than those dealt In by the tobacco
corporations.
MenHpoiy and Conspiracy.
Attorney General wickershem IN h,s -.
rument Of the tobacco case expregsed ~
opinion that a different element would
enter into the trade in an absolute neees-
Sity Of lie, IS distinguished from ons
that was not 4 necessity. because sueh
commodity WAS charged with a public
use, just as much, II not more. than vhat
Is called public utility companies"
As the result OF the hearing In the cir
eqit courts other differences were either
NsAde 0r became apparent.
~ the tcbacco suit the court did not
find sufficient evidence 10 held that there
was a monopoly n the trade ia question
although dld hold that there was a COM
bineron in rcstlNint of trade. In the
STANDARD On case tho court was unani.
meee finding that there was an illesal
mpnqpe ~ addition to thhfe being