The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-17
Supreme Court and Standard Oil

: Supreme Court and Standard Oll ,. In Missouri in 1906 a suit was be- gun by the United States against the , Standard Oil company. The govern . ment asked for the dissolution of the t company, because it controls the oil | trade of the country in violation Of the first and second sections of the Sherman antitrust law of 1890. , The first section of that law reads : as follows: Every contract, combi- nation in the form of trust or other wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal"
 The second section reads:
 Every person (which subsequent ly was explained in the statute to in- clude corporations) who shall monop- olize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of misde- meanor.'
 Justice Harlan of the supreme court insisted that any restraint of trade came within the terms of the first section-that any attempt to read into that section the words "un- duen or unreasonable" would be leg islation rather than interpretation.
 But the eight other justices of the court held that "the rule of reason" should be applied to each case to de- termine whether the subject thus brought before the court was within the statute. The application of this rule of reasonableness is based by the court on the common law and the gen. eral law as they existed in 1890 when the Sherman bill became law. The first section of the Sherman law must be interpreted not as people may or may not understand the words meant in the light of the com- mon law and the laws of the country in 1890.
 This interpretation plainly calls for the exercise of reason in ascertaining , what restraints of trade are pro- \ hibited. Chief Justice White rendered : the opinion of the court, and in that
 opinion he practically says that lit
 eral interpretation of the first section
 of the Sherman law would paralyze nearly all trade operations of the country. This, he claims, was not in- tended, and in order to secure the intent of the law the court has adopt ed what the chief justice calls the rule of reason which is to be used in each case that comes before the court.
 The Standard Oil company, con- trolling about 90 per cent of the oil trade of the country, is found guilty by the court of restraint of trade and of being a monopoly. The rule of reason, therefore, fits it without a hitch or pebble. It must be dis solved, but no stockholder will lose any of his rights because the rule of reason will be applied also to the dissolution of the company.
 This charitable and lenient view of the antitrust law will save many companies from destruction. It will not affect the United States Steel corporation, which controls but SO per cent of the iron and steel trade of the country. It will not affect large number of holding companies, and is not nearly so sweeping and drastis as many expected it would be. And yet it retains the Sherman law unim- paired and if a corporation can be convicted of acts in restraint of trade or of acts looking to monopoly it can be dissolved as the Standard Oil is to be in the next six months. After hearing the decision Judge Gary said; "In the comparatively near future business conditions will be improved as a result" and one Standard Oil lawyer said "the Standard Oil com pany will be able to go forward with a precision and certainty it has not known for years" It is not, in short, disturbing or revolutionary de- cision.
 l Dogs and the Dog Cart