The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1910-02-24

tinuing monopoly, or attempted mo-
nopoly, Of important elements in In
tcr0tate commerce

tinuing monopoly, or attempted mo-
nopoly, Of important elements in In
terstate commerce.
+ The Standard Oil company Of New
Jersey is attacked as holding COM
pany." Out Of its 100000 900 capt.
tai stock. over $97,000,O0O was ex-
changed In 1899. according to the gov
ernment 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 q holding and an
operating company. 1t is actively
engaged In the tobacco business, owns
its own shops and sells the manufac-
tured products. In the case of the
Standard Oil company, the raw prod
uct Is to an extent produced by the
corporation; in that of the tobac 20
combination the raw material is pur-
chased.
Illegal Holding Companies.
While the Sherman law does not
specifically prohibit the organization
of holding companies, the supreme
court declared in the Northern Sc
curities case that the holding conf
pany constituted 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, a
monopoly had existed, and that the
various forms which the conspiracy
alleged against the old 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
consummated in 1890, there was a
monopoly only in the cigarette trade;
the defendants claim that the control
of the business then secured has
since materially dwindled.
The Standard oils counsel have
contended that the corporations which
in 1899 entered into the agreements
complained Of had long since ceased
to be competitors. 4 In the tobacco
case, the defendants contend that
their acts have been. confined mere
ly to the acquisition of manufacturing
property; that manufacturing corpo-
frations are under no. legal obligation
to compete-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 Stand
ard Oil company is charged with Of
tense against the Sherman law alone
The tobacco corporations are charg-
ed with offending tho application of
the antitrust Jaw to sany conspiracy
in restraint Of. trade, one party tc
which was an importe Furthermore
the government is seeking, to estab-
lish the rule that a corporation en-
| tering into an agreement abroad
which in purpose conflicts with Amer
ican law, gains no immunity from the
fact that such an agreement is law
full in the foreign country.
1t is suggested that the commodities
handled by the Standard Oil company
may be more properly called "neces-
saries of life" than those dealth in
by the tobacco corporations.
Attorney General Wickersham in
his argument Of the tobacco case ex-
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
necessity, because such commodity
was charged with a public use, just
as much. If not more. than what is
called public utility companies
As the result of the hearing in the
circuit courts. other differences were
made or became apparent.
In the tobacco suit, the court did
not find sufficient evidence to- hold
that there was monopoly in the
trade in question, although it did hold
that there was a combination in re-
straint of trade. In the Standard Oil
case, the court was unanimous in
finding that there was an illegal
monopoly, in addition to there being
a cOnSDiracy