The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1911-05-19
~
Loses Long Fight In
I Supreme Court.
ORDERED TO DISSOLVE
Is Declared to Be Monopoly In
Restraint Of Trade.
TRUSTS TO Be CLASSIFIED
Government Pleased With Deci-
!. sion, Which Gives Corporation
Z Six Months to Conform to Law.
O. Justice Harlan Objects to Form
7 of Chief Justice Whites 0pin-
ion---Business of Country Will
Experience Little Shock.

washington, Huy
tation of the Sherman antitrust law,
long awaited by the business world,
was handed down by the United
States supreme court. In the first
OF its big decisions in the antitrust
cases the court holds that the Stand
ard Oil company is conspiracy in
restraint of trade and a monopoly In
contravention Of the Sherman anti
trust law. Thus, after fight OF
many years in which every OBSTACLE
known to the legal profession has
been interposed, the federal govern
ment has finally succeeded in its
effort to compel this giant corpora.
tion to cast off It's holding company
and again TO separate itself into its
S3 constituent parts. To accomplish
this gigantic undertaking, the court
sets period of six months. This Is
an extension of five months over the
time allotted in the dissolution decree
OF the lower court.
e Decision Eagerly Awaited.
The decision OF the court in regard
20 the general Interpretation of the
Sherman antitrust law was awaited
with greater anxiety by the business
world than the finding OF fact in the
Standard Oil case. The court holds
that IL Is necessary to distinguish be-
tween reasonable" and ''unreason-
able" restraint of trade as covered
by the Sherman antitrust law.
The effect of the decision, as
viewed by distinguished lawyers, is
TO insert the word unreasonable"
into the general prohibition in the
Sherman antitrust law against com
binations In restraint Of trade. The
supreme court has thus eliminated
the uncertainty with which all bust.
pess combinations regarded the Sher.
man antitrust law. and IN the future
st will be up TO the government TO
draw the line between good and bad
trusts. The antitrust law as con.
strued by the court does not apply to
all combinations, contracts or acts In
restraint of trade, but only tc those
which are shown to he unreasonable
and In which the intent to form an
unlawful conspiracy or monopoly can
be proved or inferred. The decision
OF the court and its general effect
was regarded in Washington as dis
unctly reassuring TO business.
White Reads Decision.
The decision OF the court was read
by Chief Justice Edward Douglass
White, II was unanimous, with tho
exception OF Associate Justice Har-
tap's dissent Justice Harlans words
were marked by biting sarcasm. lie
contended that the court had not
gone far enough and he objected
particularly to the words OF the chief
5usice In constituting the purpose OF
the antitrust act. He declared that
che court had rendered an opinion
fhat reversed an unbroken line OF de-
&ieions for 10 years past. He criti.
cised tho corporation lawyers who,
failing TO get an amendment TO laws
ehipuBn conkTtbh, cHlue 10 the United
States courts for relief He added,
with manifest sarcasm, that II was
hscomlns fashionable to amend the
constitution and the federal statutes
by judicial construction
II was the Interpretation OF the
Bherman law 80 as 10 apply only TO
unreasonable combinations to which
Associate Justice Harlan objected so
vigorously.
NO Remedy Suggested. it
The decisions OF the court fail to
point out any way IN which the
Standard on company may dissolve
and reorganize. I'VE construe tho
decree" said the court, mot AZ de.
priying the stockholders or the corpo.
raiions, after the dissolution of this
combination, OF the power to make
normal and lawful contracts or agree.
msuts, but 40 restraining them from,
~ any device whatever. re.engaging
directly or Indirectly In the illegal
icombinatiou which the decree die
solved.