The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1910-02-25
NO DECISION YET
IN TRUST CASES
Decision In Tobacco and Standard OIL
Cases Expected to Cover Same
cround--Essentlally Kindred.
BY Associated Press.

preHle court OF the Unlted states mas
youehsafed no intimation on the sub
ject II is generally supposed here that
the decision In the case Of the Ameri.
can Tobacco company, which has al
ready been argued before the court,
will not be handed down at least until
after the argument in the case OF the
Standard on company. which is set for
March a.
Attorney General Wickersham 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 TO.
gether.
Lawyers here generally concur in
the statement made by Mr.. Wicker
sham to the court, that these two
cases together present for IT'S consid-
Grafton practically the entire range
Of modern industrial organizations In
this country" and substantially every
feature of the trust question" SO far
as II falls within the purylew of the
Sherman antitrust law. Yet they are
not precisely alike; inded, 1t 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 II In the other.
The two cases are alike in that they
are proceedings in equity TO enjoin
alleged violations of the law of the
land--neither Is In its essence a erin.
inal action; In neither does the gov
ernment seek to procure either Inn.
prisonment OF individuals or exemp-
larry 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 mono
poly, OF important elements In inter.
state commerce.
The Standard Oil company of New
Jersey is attacked as holding com.
pany." Out OF its sle0,000,OOO capital
stock, over S97000.00O was exchang.
ed In 1899. according 10 the govern
ment figures. for stock in nineteen
other corporations, engaged in the
various branches of the petroleum bus
mess, owns It's own shops and sells
the manufactured products. In the
case of the Standard oil company.
the raw product Is 70 an extent pro.
ducec by the corporation; IN that OF
the tobacco combination the raw ma
terial is purchased.
While the sherman law does not
specifically prohibit the organization
OF holding companies. the supreme
court declared IN the Northern Sc.
ouritles case that the holding com.
pany constituted an organization in
restraint Of trade and commerce.
The government charges that from
the time OF the Organization OF the |
Standard OF company IN 1899 mon |
opoly was obtained that IN fact for
years prior 10 that a virtual monopoly /
had existed 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 tie
times.
In the tobacco case It is alleged that
originally when the merger was con.
summated In 1890. there was a mon.
poly 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 In the tobacco
case. the defendants contend that
their acts have been confined merely
to the acquisition of manufacturing
property; that manufacturing corpur.
ations are under no legal obligation
to compete - the prohibition being
against specific agreements TO sup.
press competition; non-competltion as
the result Of the acquisition Of prop.
erty is, the defendants insist, not a
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 chare.
ed with offending also the Wilson tar
IN act OF 1894. which extended the /
application OF the antitrust law to I
any conspiracy IN restraint OF trade. Ii
one party to which was an importer i
the government Is seek. a
Ing TO establish the rule that cor. I
poration entering into an agreement q
abroad which IN purpose conflicts I
with American law. gains no immunity I
from the fact that such an agreement
Is lawful In the foreign country. n