Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1910-03-02
TWO GREAT CASES
BEFORE THE COURT
EVERY FEATURE OF TRUST
QUESTION INVOLVED IN OIL
AND TOBACCO ISSUES.
ONE ARGUMENT ALREADY HAS
BEEN MADE AND OTHER
OPENS MARCH IA.


supreme court OF the United States
has vouchsafed no intimation on the
subject, it Is generally supposed that
the decision I'm 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 as
essentially kindred. and suggested to
the court that they be considered to-
gether
Lawyers generally concur in this
statement that these two cases to
gcther present for it's consideration
practically the entire range of mod
ern industrial organizations in this
country and substantially every feat.
IRE of the trust question. so far as II
falls within the purview of the Sher-
man antitrust law Yet they are not
precisely alike. Indeed, it 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.
terstare commerce.
The Standard Oil company Of New
Jersey is attacked as y holding com.
pany out Of its 100000 900 capital
stock, over $9TOO0.00O was exchanged
in 1899 according to the government
figures for stock in 10 other corpora.
tions, engaged in the various branches
OF the petroleum business.
The American Tobacco company is
alleged TO be both holding and an
operating company. It is actively en-.
gagged in the tobacco business, owns
its own shops and sells tue manufac
tured products. In the case of the oil
! company, the raw product is to an ex.
ta9t 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, a 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
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 ng1fg ,un..-t
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 &C.
QUESTION Of manufacturing property:
that manufacturing corporations are
under no legal utilization TO compet,
the prohibition being against speci.
lic agreements to surpass competition
Noncompetition as the result Of the
acquisition Of property is, the de
PENDANTS insist, not a 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 a corporation entering into
an agreement abroad which in pur.
pose conflicts with American law,
gains 10 immunity from the fact thar
such an agreement is lawful In the
foreign country
II is suggested that the comoditics
handled by the oil company may be
more property called necessaries Of
life than those dealt in by the to.
baccO corporations Attorney Gen
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 charged
with public use, just as much ii
not more than what is called public
utility companies"
In the tobacco suit. the lower court
did not find sufficient evidence to hold
that there was a monopoly in the