Arizona republican., 1910-02-24

that the decision in the case of the American Tobacco company, which has already been argued before the court, will not be handed down at least until after the argument in the case of the Standard oil company, which is set for March IA. Attorney General Wick ersham, in his motion to advance the hearing of the latter case. described the two as essentially kindred. and suggested to the court that they be considered together.
 Lawyers here generally concur in the statement made by MT Wickersham to the court that these two cases to- gether present for it's consideration practically the entire range of mod ern industrial organizations in this country" and substantially every fea- ture of the trust question:" so far as it falls within the purview of the sherman antitrust law. Yet they are not precisely alike: indeed. t is said that in some particulars they are so dissimilar that the court might find in favor of the government in one case, and against it in the other.
 The two cases are alike in that they are proceedings in equity to snjoin al legged violations of the law of the land: neither is in its essence criminal action; in neither does the govern ment seek to procure either imprison ment of individuals or exemplary fines upon the defendants. In both suits the charges pressed are those alleging unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce. and continuing monopoly or attempted monopoly. of important ele- ments in interstate commerce.
 The Standard oil company of New Jersey is attacked as holding com pany." Out of its SlO0, 900 0G0 capital stock. over $97 100000 was exchanged in 1899. according to the government figures, for stock in nineteen other corporations. engaged in the various branches of the petroleum business.
 The American Tobacco company is alleged to be both holding and an operating company. II is actively en- gagged in the tobacco business, owns its own shops and sells the manufactured products. In the case of the Stand ard Oil company. the raw product is to an extent produced by the corpora
 
 ton the raw material is purchased
 While the Sherman law does not spe- officially prohibit the organization of holding companies, the supreme court declared in the Northern Securities case that the holding company con stituted an organization in restraint of trade and commerce.
 The government charges that from the time of the organization of the Standard oil company in 1899. mono poly was obtained; that in fact for years prior to that virtual monopoly had existed and that the various form which the conspiracy alleged against the oil company has taken, have been merely adaptations to the changing needs and conditions of the times.
 In the tobacco case. it is alleged that originally when the merger was con- summated in 1890, there was a mo- nopoly only in the cigarette trade; the defendants claim that the control of the business then secured has since materially tdwindled.
 The Standard Oirs counsel have con- tended that the corporations which lin 1899 entered into the agreements com plained of had long since ceased to be competitors. In the tobacco case the defendants contend that their acts have been confined merely 10 the ac- quisition of manufacturing property: that manufacturing corporations are under no legal obligation to compete the prohibition being against spe- cific agreements to suppress compe- tition; competition as the result of the acquisition of property is. the defendants insist. not violation of the statute.
 Another difference between the two cases lies in the fact that the Stand ard Oil company is charged with of lenses against the Sherman law alone; the tobacco corporations are charged with offending also the Wilson tariff act of 1894. which extended the appli- cation of the antitrust law to any conspiracy in restraint of trade one party to which was an importer. Fur thermore. the government is seeking | to establish the rule that a corporation ] entering into an agreement abroad ] which in purpose conflicts with Amer | ican law, gains no immunity from the | fact that such an agreement is law ful in the foreign country.
 It is suggested that the commodi- | ties handled by the Standard oil com | pany may be more properly called | "necessaries of life" than those dealt | in by the tobacco corporation.
 Attorney General Wckersham in | his argument of the tobacco case ex- i pressed the opinion that a different | element would enter into the trade in | an absolute necessity of life, as dis :, tinguished from one that was not a l necessity. because such a commodity ! was charged with a public use, just | as much, if not more. than what is i called public utility companies"
 As the result of the hearing in the circuit courts, other differences were either made or became apparent.
 In the tobccco suit. the court did not | find sufficient evidence to hold that there was a monopoly in the trade in question. although it did hold that there was combination in restraint Df trade. In the Standard oil case. he court was unanimous in finding hat there was an illegal monopoly. in addition to there being a conspiracy