New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-16

Washington. May l5-Announcing the
opinion of the United States Supreme court
| in the STANDARD oil case Chief JUSTICE
White reviewed the preliminary proceed
ings in the case in the Circuit court OF the
| United States for the Eastern Dlstrlct OF
| Missouri He restated the essential points
| i'm the bill Of the government asking lot
! the dissolution Of the Standard on COM
many and the answer questioning the
jurisdiction Of the court and denying inc
claims of the government He dismissed
the objection TO the jurisdiction in te"
words by holding that II was not wen
| founded.
! He then came TO the arguments as 10 Inc
law and the facts in the case. saving thai
out of the Jungle Of law and facts both
sides were agreed on only one thing. and
! that was that the determination OF the
controversy rested on the proper construc-
ton and application Of the first and second
sections Of the antitrust act. The first
section reads a follows:
! Of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, IN
restraint Of trade or commerce among the
| several states. or with foreign nations, IS
hereby declared 10 be illegal
The second section reads:
Every person (which subsequently was
explained in the statute TO include coIPo.
rationsl who shall monopoilze OF so'1 ,,itt,
any other person or persons 70 monoponZe
any part ri trade or commerce among tle
several states, or with foreign nauonS'
shall be deemed guilty Of a misdemeanor.
Diverse View Of Law and Facts
The views of the two sides. as 10 the law
the chief Justice said were as wide apart
as the poles. The same he said, was true
as to the facts. He added
Thus on the one hand. with relentless
pertinacitv and minuteness Of ANALYSIS; J,
is insisted that the facts are estanilsheu
that the assailed combination loon IT, tr
birth IN a purpose 10 un'sw wv and de-
strovine the lust rights Of others, ana tuSt
it's entire career cXemplites an ineNoiapt.9
since, il is asserted, the pathway 81 m
combination from the beginning OF tne
time Of the fling Of the bill IS ma keu III ~
constant proofs Of wrong inflicted upon lue
public and is strewn with the wrecks ~
sutine from crushing out. without Iesa ns
IN law the individual rights OF otherS:
II is asserted that the existence OF
the principal corporate defehuanr' LII. tt
Standard oil Company Of New Jersey. WIN
its vast accumulation of property; because
of its potency for harm and the oalseroGs
example which its continued eNlstencc d.
fords, is an open and endurinS menace -
all freedom of trade and hyword ahG re-
proach 10 all modern economic methodS
ON the other hand. in powerful anaiysiS
of the facts il IL insisted that they dehoH-
strate that the origin and development OF
the vast business which the deiendahls
control was but the result OF lawful com
petitiye methods guided by economic
qenins of The highest order. sustained by
courage by a keen insight into the COM
mercial situation resulting in the acquisi-
ton OF great wealth but AT the same IIile
serving 10 stimulate an increased produc-
ton 10 widely extend the distribution or
the products OF petroleum al a cost largely
below that which would otherwise have
nrevailed thus proving 10 be al one and the
same time a benefaction 10 the general
public as well as an enormous advantage
10 individuals
Only One Point of Agreement.
In this state of affairs the Chief Justice
seized on the single point OF concord. name
". the application of the two sections OF
the Sherman antitrust law. as the initial
basis of an examination Of the contention.
The remainder Of his opinion divided itself
into consideration of the meaning of the
Sherman antitrust law in the light OF the
common law and the law OF the United
States at the time of its adoption, the con-
tentions Of the parties concerning the act
and the scope and effect OF the decisions or
the Supreme Court. the application or me
statute to the facts and. lastly. the remedy.
IN striving to get AT the meaning OF the
two sections of the law he said mat the
sole subject with which the first section
dealt was restraint Of trade. ana that
the attempt to monopolize and monopoliza-
ton" was the subject Of the second section.
The Chief Justice added that in getting az
the meaning of these words he would he
guided by the principle that where words
are employed in a statute which at the
/ lime had well known meaning IN common
! law. or in the law OF this country, they
were presumed to have been used in this
sense unless the context compels 10 the
contrary
Common Law and Sherman Law.
/ He summarized his search into the COM
mon law and the law of the country al the
time the Sherman antitrust law was
passed so far as the first section was con
| cerned as follows:
a. That the context n1anifests that the
statute was drawn IN the light OF the
! existing practical conception OF the law
| Of restraint OF trade, because It groups
as within that class not only contracts
when we're IN restraint OI ldOo w ''c
subjective sense. but all contracts or acts
which theoretically were attempts to
mono poIize, yet which in practice had
| come to be considered as IN restraint OF
! trade in a broad sense.
| b. That in view OF the many forms OF
contracts and combinations which we're
/ beino evolved from existing economic
| conditions. Il was deemed essential by an
all. embracing enumeration to make sure
| that no form OF contract or combination
/ by which an undue restraint OF interstate
/ or foreion commerce was brought about
could save such restraint from condem
/ nation The statute under this view
evidenced the intent not to restrain the
cioht to make and enforce contracts.
whether resulting from, combination or
otherwise, which did not unduly restrain
| interstate or foreign commerce, but to
nrotect that commerce from being re.
strained by methods, whether old or new,
which would constitute an interference
that is an undue restraint.
r And as the contracts or acts en- .
braced in the provision were not ex-
! nressly defined, since the enumeration
| addressed itself simply 10 classes OF acts,
tLosc classes being broad enough to en-
brace every conceivable contract or com
bination which could be made concerning
trade or commerce or the subjects Of
smoh commerce. and thus caused any act
done by any OF the enumerated methods
snv>vhere in the whole field OF human
activity 10 be illegal il in restraint Of
trade, Il inevitably follows that the pro-
vision necessarily called tor the exercise
/ i Il.