The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-07-02


OF the Court to pass on the law are
| daily more apparent
| The Sherman law was confusing and
| equivocal when 1t was passed. 1t
was too long, too involved, too me-
cllanical; 1t gave authority to pros
ecute where 1t did not provide the
machinery; and 1t made machinery
which could not be readily OPP
on the statute books and as it has
beenr-construed from year to year, 1t
has become more and more confused,
until law officers were forced to rest
their cases until the Supreme Court
should pass finally on the real mean
Ing of the act.
| The classification of holding COM
panies has been the most puzalins aud
disputed point of the law. Where a
company has only formal existence,
and is made up of many smaller COM
panies, stocked and in operation, does
the holding company become a monop-
oily in restraint of trade when It's sub
sidiary companies, taken together.
monopolize the trade? The trainers Of
the law did not say, and the Judges
constituting the law in the Northern
Securities case. left the deeper ques-
ton in doubt. when the Supreme
Court in ordering n rehearing OF the
Tobacco Trust and Oil Trust cases
practically admitted that it could
reach no decision the hands of pros
Courts were helpless.
There are about 1900 holding com
panies in this country, representing
some 10000 subsidiary companies.
Some of these are monopolies; some
are merely the conveniences or trade;
yet the securities of each and every
one of them are of uncertain value
until the Court shall decide the case
They are afraid to market new bonds
they dare not issue and sell new
stock they can only wait until new
judges on the Supreme Bench viii
break the deadlock which is supposed
to exist, and Will put a final and post
tive construction on the law.
AS we pointed out when the Su-
preme Court refused to pass on the
OIL and Tobacco cases, the security of
these companies is really the only
question involved. Simply to declare
that they do not exist legally will
have no effect upon their practical ex-
istence; for nothing can destroy the
property rights, the franchises and the
plants upon which the monopoly of
the OIL Trust and the alleged monop-
oily of the Tobacco Trust is said to ex-
ist The Standard OIL Company of
New Jersey may be denied the right |
to sue, and may be declared fictitious !
corporation, even an illegal corpora |
ton: but the company remains
The whole discussion, however. at |
this time, illustrates the failing of |
our system of trust regulation and |
points out the remedy. If the hnal |
construction of the Antitrust Law I
resolves itself into classification of /
holding companies. and If the Courts |
must dsCLue on Niiis coiislFuCtloH. why /
should not the courts have decided the
matter il the first instance. If the
Government officers thought that the
Standard Oil Company was monop-
oily in restraint of trade-which it
probably is-why did they have to in
woke a law which is doubtful in its
and ponderous in It's opera
tions? Why did they not sue the
company as conspiracy and decide
the matter without the Formally of
special statutes? Such method
would certainly have saved time and
would perhaps have avoided compiled
lions which may arise when the Court
finally reaches its verdict.