The Wenatchee daily world. [volume] (Wenatchee, Wash.) 1905-1971, 1910-02-25
STANDARD OIL---TOBACCO TRUSTS

Standard Oil company, the raw pro-
duct is to an extent produced by the
corporation; in that OF the tobacco
combination the raw material is pur-
chased.
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 COM
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 was obtained; that in fact
for years prior to that virtual mon
opoly had existed, and that the var
ious forms which the conspiracy al
legged 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
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
lin 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 mere
ly to the acquisition of manufacture
ing property; that manufacturing
corporations are under no legal OBJ
legation to compete-the prohibition
being against specific agreements to
suppress competition; non-competi-
ton 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
Standard Oil company is charged with
offense against the Sherman law
alone; the tobacco corporations are
charged with offending also the Will
son tariff act of 1894, which extend
ed the application of the antitrust
law to any conspiracy in restraint of
trade, one party to which was an i'm
porter. Furthermore, the govern
ment is seeking to establish the rule
that a corporation entering into an
agreement abroad which in purpose
conflicts with American law, gains
no immunity from the fact that such
an agreement is lawful in the foreign
country.
It Is suggested that the commodi
ties handled by the Standard Oil
company may be more properly call
ed "necessaries of life" than those
dealt in by the tobacco corporations.
Attorney General Wickersham in
his argument of the tobacco case ex
pressed the opinion that different
element would enter into the trade
in an absolute necessity of life, as
distinguished from one that was not
necessity, because such a commod-
ity "was charged with 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
either made or became apparent.
In tho tobacco 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 of trade. In the Stand
ard Oil case, the court was unanimous
in finding that there was an illegal
monopoly, in addition to there being
a conspiracy.