Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1911-05-18
Federal Supreme Court RG.l3
Standard OIL Company to
Be Unlawful Monopoly.
MUST DISSOLVE IN SIX MONTHS
Chief Justice White Announces
Courts Opinion, to Which
Justice Harlan DiSScntS.

Washington, May 16.-The Standard
nineteen subsidiary corporations were
declared by the supreme court of the
United States to be conspiracy and
combination in restraint of trade. 1t
also was held to be monopoizing in
terstate commerce in violation OF the
Sherman antitrust law. The dissolu-
ton OF the combination was ordered
to take place within six months.
Thus ended the tremendous strug
gle on the part of the government to
put down by authority of law a com
blnation which it claimed was a men
ace to the Industrial and economic adj
yancement of the entire country.
At the same time the court inter
preted the Sherman antitrust law so
as to limit its appncation to acts OF
undue" restraint of trade and not
every" restraint OF trade. 1t was on
this point that the only discordant
note was heard In the court.
Justice Harlan dissented, claiming
that cases already decided by the
court had determined once for all
that the word undue" or 'unreason.
able" or similar words. were not in
the statute He declared that the
reasoning OF the court in arriving at
its finding was in effect legislation
which belonged in every instance to
congress and not to the courts.
The opinion OF the court was an
nounced by Chief Justice White. In
printed form il contained more than
10000 words
INDUCES in Cutting Remarks.
In subjecting to scrutiny the acts
end doings of the Standard Oil com
pany in the long distant past for the
purpose of getting assistance i'm dis.
covering intent and purpose Chief
Justice White left cutting remark.
1--WE think no disinterested mind
can survey the period In question
without being irresistibly driven to
the conclusion that the very genius
for commercial development and or
ganization which it would seem was
manifested from the beginning soon
begot an intent and purpose to ex-
clude others which was frequently
manifested by acts and dealings who'll.
ly inconsistent with the theory that
they were made with the single con-
ception of advancing the development
of business power by usual methods.
but which on the contrary neces.
sarily involved the intent to drive
others from the field and to exclude
them from their right to trade and
thus accomplish the mastery which
was the end in view.
1.-THE inference that no attempt to
monopolize could have been intended.
and that no monopolization from the
acts complained of. since 1t is estab-
lished that very small percentage
of the crude oil produced was con-
trolled by the combination. Is unwar-
ranted.
Finds Intent to Monopolixe.
"As substantial power over the
crude product was the inevitable re-
suit of the absolute control which ex-
listed over the refined product, the mo-
nopolization OF the one carried with
It the power to control the other. and
II the differences which this situation
suggests were developed. which we
deem it necessary to do, they might
well serve to add additional cogency
to the presumption of intent to monop-
Ollie which we have found arises from
the unQuestioned proof on other sub
jscts."
The court then considered the argu-
ments that the statute could not be
applied under the facts in the case
without impairirg rights of property
and destroying the freedom of con-
tract Of trade which is essentially nee
sssary to the well being of society.
But the ultimate foundation of all
these arguments" said the chief jus
tice. lis the assumption that reason
may not be resorted to In Interpreting
and applying the statute and, there
fore, that the statute unreasonably re-
stricts the right to contract and I'M
reasonably operates upon the right to
acquire and hold property. Az the
premise Is demonstrated to be un-
sound by the construction we have
given the statute, of course. the propo-
sitions which rest upon that premise
need not be further noticed"