Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-02-24
CASES OF STANDARD OIL AND
TOBACCO COMBINE WILL
SOLVE QUESTION.
GENERAL ASKS
CONSIDERATION AT SAME TIME
Life of Modern Industrial Organization
Of This Country Will be Affected by
Supreme Courts Ruling ~ Wherein
Cases Are Similar -one May Be
Won, Other Lost.

Washington, Feb. 24.-While the SUI
preme court Of the United States has
vouchsafed no intimation on the sub
ject it 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 Oil Company, which is set for
March IA. Attorney General Wicker
sham, in his motion to advance the
hearing of the latter case described the
two as essentially kindred, and sug-
gested to the court that they be con-
sidered together.
Lawyers here generally concur in the
statement made by Mr.. Wickersham to
the court, that these two cases together
present for its consideration "practi-
cally the entire range of modern in
dustrial organizations in this country"
and substantially every feature of the
trust question: so far as it falls
within the purview of the Sherman an
I'LL AoI AelW. ICI SuSy are llOI VI
cisely alike; indeed, it 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 it in the other.
The two cases are alike in that they
are proceedings in equity to enjoin al
legged violations of the law Of the land
as neither is in its essence a criminal
action; in neither does the government
seek to procure either Imprisonment
of individuals or exemplary fines upon
the defendants. In both suits the
charges pressed are those alleging un-
lawful combination and conspiracy In
restraint of interstate trade and COM
.merce and continuing monopoly or at
tempted monopoly, of important ele-
ments in interstate commerce.
Wherein Cases Differ.
The Standard Oil Company of New
Jersey is attacked as a "holding COM
pany" Out of it's s10O.0O0.O00 capita!
stock, over $97,OO0,0o0 was exchanged
in 1899, according to the government
figures, for stock in nineteen other COR
porations, 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
it's own shops and sells the manu-
factured products. In the case Of the
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 Securities
case that the holding company consti-
tuted 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 mon
opoly was obtained;. that in fact for
years prior to 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 the
times
In the tobacco case, it is alleged that
originally when the merger was con-
summated in 1890, there was a mon
opoly only in the cigaret trade; the
defendants claim that the control of
the business then secured has since
materially dwindled.
Standard Oils Contention.
The Standard Oils counsel have con-
tended that the corporations which in
1899 entered into the agreements COM
planned 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-
quisition Of manufacturing property;
that manufacturing corporations are
under no legal obligation to compete
tine prohibition being against specific
agreements to suppress competition:
nom competition as the result of the
acquisition of property is. the defend
ants 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 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 in
to an agreement abroad which in pur-
pose 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 commodities
handled by the STANDARD Oil Company
may be more properly called 'Neces-
saries of life" than those dealth in by
the tobacco corporations.
Tobacco Company Not Monopoly.
Attorney General Wickersham in his
argument of the tobacco case expressed
the opinion that different element
would enter into the trade in an abb
solute necessity Of life, as distinguish
ed from one that was not necessity.
because such q commodity WAS
Y =