Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1910-03-03
EVERY FEATURE OF TRUST
QUESTION INVOLVED IN OIL
AND ToeAcco ISSUES.
ONE ARGUMENT ALREADY HAS
BEEN MADE AND OTHER
OPENS MARCH IA.

subject, 1t Is generally supposed that
the decision in the case OF the Amer
lean Tobacco company. which has al.
ready been argued. will not be handed
down at least until after the argu.
ment in the case Of the Standard Oil
company, which is set for March IA.
Attorney General Wickersham, in
his motion to advance the hearing OF
the latter case, described the two AZ
essentially kindred, and suggested to
the court that they be considered to-
gether.
Lawyers generally concur in this
statement 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 feat.
ure of the trust question. so far as 1t
falls within the purview of the Sher.
man antitrust law. Yet they are not
precisely alike Indeed, 1t is said that
in some particulars they are so dis.
similar that the court might find in
favor Of the government in one case.
and against it in another.
The two cases are alike in that
they are proceedings in equity to en-
join alleged violations of the law of
the land Neither is in its essence a
criminal action; In neither does the
government seek to procure either i'm.
prisonment of individuals o: exem-
plary fines upon the defendants. In
both suits the charges pressed are
those alleging unlawful combination
and conspiracy in restraint of inter
state trade and commerce, and con.
tinuing monopoly. or attempted mon.
opoly, of important elements in in.
terstate commerce
The Standard Oil company of New
Jersey is attacked as a holding com.
pany. Out of its $1O0.OOO,0OO capital
stock, over $9700O,O00 was exchanged
/ in 1899 according to the government
figures for stock in 10 other corpora.
lions, engaged in the various branches
OF the petroleum business.
|, The American Tobacco company is
alleged to be both a holding and an
operating company. 1t is actively en-.
gagged in the tobacco business, owns
its own shops and sells the manufac-
tured products. In the case of the oil
company, the raw product is to an ex-
tent produced by the corporation in
that of the tobacco combination the
raw material is purchased.
While the Sherman law does not,
specifically prohibit the organization
of holding companies, the supreme
court declared in the Northern Secur-
tiles case that the holding company
constituted an organization in re.
straint of trade and commerce
The government charges that from
the time of the organization of the
oil company In 1899, monopoly was
obtained; that in fact for years prior
to that virtual monopoly had exist.
ed, and that the various forms 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
consumnated In 1890 there was a
monopoi, 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
commended that the corporations which
In 1899 entered into the agreements
complained of had long since ceased
to be competitors. In the tobacco case
the defendants contend that their acts
have been confined merely to the ac-
QUESTION of manufacturing property;
that manufacturing corporations are
under no legal utilization to compete
the prohibition being against speci-
nc agreements to surpass competition.
Non-competition as the result of the
acquisition Of property is. the de.
PENDANTS insist, not violation of the
statute.
Another difference between the two
cases lies in the fact that the Oil com.
pany is charged with offense against
the Sherman law alone. The tobacco
corporations are charged with offend.
ing also the Wilson tariff act OF 1894.
which extended the application of the
antitrust law to any conspiracy In
restraint Of trade, one party to which
was an importer. Furthermore. the
government is seeking to establish the
rule that corporation entering into
an agreement abroad which In pur.
pose conflicts with American law.
gains no immunity from the fact thar
such an agreement is lawful in the
foreign country.
IL Is suggested that the comodities
handled by the oil company NAV he
more properly called necessaries of
life than those dealt in by the To-
Dacco corporations Attorney Cen.
eral Wickersham in his argument of
the tobacco case expressed the opin.
Ion that different element would
enter into the trade in an absolute
necessity OF life as distinguished from
one that was not a necessity. be-
cause such commodity was cha. yed
with public use, just as much. If
not more. than what is called public
utility companies"
IN the tobacco suit, the lower court
did not find sufficient evidence tn hold
tnat there was a monopoly in the
trade IN question, although it did hold
that there was combination in r..
seraint OF trade. In the case the court
was unanimous In finding that ther..