The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1910-02-25
TWO TRUSTS
IN COURT

has vouchsafed no animation on the
subject. it Is generally supposed ners
| that the decision in the case OF the
American Tobacco Company, which
has already been argued before the
court, will not be handed down at
least until after the argument in the
case of the Standard Oil Company,
which is set for March IA. Attorney
General wickersnan in his motion to
advance the hearing of the latter case
described the two as essentially kim
dred, and suggested to the court that
they be considered together.
Lawyers here generally concur in
| the statement made by Mr.. Wicker
slam to the court. that these two
| eases together present for its consid-
Grafton practically the entire range
Of modern industrial organizations in
the country" and substantially every
feature of the trust question" so far
as il falls within the purview of the
Sherman antitrust law. Yet they are
| not precisely alike; indeed, it is said
that in some particulars they are SO
dissinilaI that the court might find
in favor of the government in one
The cases are alike In that they
are proceedings in equity to enjoin al
legged violations of the law of the
iand-neither is in it's essence a cri-
ninal action; in neither does the
government seek to procure either
Imprisonment of individuals or exeCn-
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 mo-
nopoly, of important elements in in
terstate commerce.
The Standard Oil Company of New
Jersey is attacked as a holding COM
pany." Out of it's 800, ,o00.O capital
stock, over $97. 00O,0OO was exchang-
ed in 1899, according to the govern
nent figures, for stock in nineteen
other corporations, engaged IN the
various branches of the petroleum
business
The American Tobacco Company is
alleged to be both a holding and an
operating company. It is actively en-
gagged in the tobacco business, owns
its own shops and sells the manufac
tured products. In the case of the
Standard Oil Company, the raw pro-
duct Is to an extent produced by the
corporation; in that OF tae tobacco
COZ. bination the raw material is pur-
chased
While tle Sherman law does not
specifically prohibit the organization
OF holding companies, the Supreme
Court declared in the Northern Sc
curities case that tae holding con-
pany constituted an organization in
restraint of trade and commerce.
The government charges that from
the timo OF the organization of the
Standard OIL Company in 1899 a mo-
nopoly was obtained; that in fact for
years prior to that a virtual monopo-
ly 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 the
times.
In the Tobacco case, 1t is alleged
that originally when the merger was
consullmated 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 IN 1899 entered into the agree
nents complained Of had long since
ceased tn be competitors. In the To
bacco case the deSndants contend
| that their acts have been confined
| merely to the acquisition of znanufac
turing property: that manufacturing
corporations are under no legal OBJ
| ligaticn to conpete-the prohibition
being against specific agreement to
| suppress competition; non-coGnpeti-
ton as the result Of the acquisition
Of property is, the defendants insist
not q violation of the statute.
Another difference between the two
cases lies In the fact that Standard
against the Sherman law alone; the
| Tobacco corporations are charged
| with offending also the Wilson tariff
l act Of 1894. which extended the appli-
cation of the antitrust law to any
| conspiracy in restraint Of trade. one
party to which was an importer. Fur
thernore. the government is seeking
| to establish the rule that q corpora
tion entering into an agreement O.
broad which IN purpose conflicts with
American law. gains no immunity
from the fact that such an agree
Dent ID lawful In the foreign country.
A -