Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-05-16


statute would be destructive % all right
20 contract or agree or combine In any
respect whatever as 70 subjects embraced
in Interstate trade or commerce: or. II this
conclusion we're not reached, then the con-
tention would require Il to BE- heid--that
as the stafute 1dtd not define the things to
which II related and excluded resort 20 the
only means by which the acts Of which
u relates could be ascertained-the light OF
reason--the enforcement Of the statute was
impossible because Of its uncertainty.
The a. . ~ generic enumeration which
the statute makes Of the acts to which II
refers and the absence. Of any definition Of
restraint Of trade az used in the statute,
leaves room for only one conclusion. which
is that il was expressly designed moi only
not TO limit the application Of the act by
precise definition. bnt while clearly fixing a
standard. that is by defining the Interior
houndari es which Gould not be transgressed
with irnpunity-to leave n 10 be determined
by the light OF reason. euided by principles
Of law and the duty TO apply and enforce
the public policy embodied in the statute in
every given case whether any particular
act or contract was within the contempls-
ton OF hs;AtstutR1 49,
Decision Of Lower Court Affirmed.
Chief Justice white said the court found
no cause 10 doubt the conclusion of the
court below. namely.
THAT the acts and dealings established
by the proof operated to destroy the
'potentiaiityhof competition, which other
wise would have existed 10 such an extent
as to canses the transfers of stock which
were made to. the New Jersey corporation
and the control which resulted over the
many subsidiary corporations to be com
blnatior or conspiracy in restraint OF trade
in violation OF the first section Of the act
but also to be. on attempt to monopolize
and a monopolization bringing about a
perennial violation OF the second section.
Basis of Decision.
He based the conclusions OF the court
that the holdings below were right or
two broad reasons These were stated By
the chief Justice 10 be as follows:
"A-Beoapse unfteaton and power OF
control over petroleum and its products
which was the negotiable result of the
combining IN the Kew Jersey corporation by
the increase OF its stock and the transfer
to It OF the stock, Of the many other cor.
porations agsregabng SO vast a capital
give rise, Ia ana OF. itself In the absence OF
countervailfhs circumstances to say the
least TO the prima facle presumption Of
intent and purpose to maintain the domin-
ancy over the Oil industry not as a result
OF normal methods OF Industrial develops
ment, but by means OF combination. which
was resoGted to- IN order that greater
power might be added than would other
wise have arisen had normal methods beer
followed. the whole with the purpose Of ex
GLIDING others from the trade and. thus
centralizing in the Combination perpetua
control Of the movements or petroleum
and its products in the Channels of inter
state commerce.
'iB-Because the prin3a facle presumption
OF intent to restrsan trade TO monopoliz'
and to bring about monopolization result
ing from the act of expanding the stocl
Of the New Jersey corporation and vestinl
It with such control Of the oil industry, IA
made conclusive by considering. % thu
conduct Of the persons or corporations whC
were manly instrumental in bringing abou
the extension OF power in the New jersey
corporation before the consumption Of
that result and prior to the formation Of
the trust agreements OF 1879 and 1882; q
by considering the proof as to what wa
done under those agreements and the act