New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-17
SAYS Jersey Law Was Obeyed.

man familiar with the affairs ~ 'h-
companv expressed surprise that Chie'
Justice White had not pointed out IN ms
opinion that the STANDARD Oil COMPANY
Of New Jersey IN effecting the comoins-
tion which II has made, had merely
taken advantage Of a New Jersey 10"
specifically permitting IL to do SO inc
decision would not cause the dissolution
of the New Jersey company. he added
II was a popular misconception that tnar
company was simply holding company
for all OF the other Standard on cor
norations. since it held in its own name
vast manufacturing interests. Inc
building at No. % Broadway he said.
was owned by the Standard oil Cou,-
pany Of New York.
Moritz Rosenthal, who directed the
work Of preparation Of the case OF tne
STANDARD oil Company and acted as ono
Of the companys attorneys during tns
long hearings conducted in this city. but
,etircd from the active practice OF the
law a wear or so ago to become partner
in the banking house of Ladenburs.
Tbalmann & Co. suggested possiole
form, of reorganization Of the trust" he
said.
The court has finally given Us 2 GEAR
and decisive Interpretation OF both sections
/ and of the sherman act. ana !, Is a.
Interpretation which, ASIDE from Us ~,
cidc effect on Standard on interests. VIII
be gratifying 10 the business community.
From hurried reading OF the opinion,
seems TO me that the court mas lntstPtr,e'
Tie act 10 be substantially what The com
mon law OF England was. and mas thels
fore 20 that extent come arouhn 70 VIZ -
sentns opinion r;,ies OF Me Jus use and also 20
son,e extent adopted the concutrlhs opln'
ion OF MIR Justice Brewer IN me same
II will he remembered that the lansusse OF
Nr Juetice Brewer in the Northern Seclr'@
ties case was as fouoWs. 49,, ..
THE purpose lof Consress rather was -
,iaca q statutorv prohibition which pre-
sscrtbss nenalties and remedies upon those
Contracts which are m direct restraint or
trade' unreasonable and against pubic POI
rbe decision. as view H. turns upop
,hs question 81 "monopolizing or AT
tempting 10 monopolize gwen Iaads 90
;ndns,rv aud the court seems 20 hold tna'
so.called combination contracts are nc
~ he construed as being ln restraint oi
trade unless such contracts nave .ne e"'N
~ noonopolizing or tend TO monopollke
Nr Jistice Holmes i'm the Northern se
curities case used the fouowins idnSuas ,, ser,.
nati,ion and only prevents its Suppression
bV contracts or combinations IN restraint
~ ,rade and such contracts ana comoint-
,ions derive their character as rsstfainlns
,rade from other features than the suppress
sion or competition alone. -,
Tbe STANDARD OF case seems 70 s'thI
souarelv on this position and dennes ths
,.atures other than the suppression VI
comnetition as being those features IN
con,bination contract which monopohze, or
tend 10 monopolize and thus the declslon
has made the cruN Of the case and the vrux
Of ali subsequent applications OF me sher
man act the question a. 10 whether tu7
r,,rnose or intent of the parties IN COM
hinine has been TO create monopoly
Pleased by Interpretation.
This Interpretation OF the law is san
and salutarv, and should be eminentv SAT.
isfactorv 70 all interests, because N mas
always been the law OF the indNldual
states and the common law Of England for
hundreds OF Years.
Now. with respect 10 the erec, OF this
decision upon the Standard OH orsaniza-
tion and it's ability 10 comply with me
decree, IL would be a bold man who would
undertake from a single reading OF the DE-
cision end the mobilization of the decree
of the lower court 10 venture WIKI any
degree Of Particularly upon an analyss
~ such decree as modlned' but such hasty