The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-05-16

lcorporation constituted q combination u
violation OF the first section and an At
tempt TO create a monopoly or to monopo-
lize under the second section and com
manded the dissolution Of the combtna-
tion the decree was clearly Appropriate;
and this also is true Of section 8 Of the
decree, which restrained both the New
Jersey corporation and the subsidiary
corporations from doing anything which
would recognize or give effect to further
ownership in the New Jersey corporation
OF the stocks which we're ordered TO be
retransferred.
RELIEF BY INJUNCTION.
But the contention is that In so far a.
the relief by way Of injunction, which
stockholders Of the subsidiary corpora
tions, or the subsidiary corporations
themselves after the transfer OF stock by
the New Jersey corporation was com
pleted in conformity to the decree that
the relief awarded was too broad "a
Because II was not sufficiently specific
and tended TO cause those who were
within the embrace Of the order to cease
10 be under the protection OF the law of
the land and required them to thereafter
conduct their business under the jeopardy
of punishments for contempt for violat-
ing general injunction. New Haven
Railroad vs.. Interstate Commerce Com.
mission 200 U. s.. 4O<J Besides II is said
that the restraint imposed by section q.
even putting out Of view the coneidera-
ton just stated, was moreover calculated
10 do injury TO the public. and IL may be,
straint in the due course of trade which
it was intended TO prevent.
I'VE say this. since II does not neces.
sarily follow because an illegal restraint
oi trade or an attempt to monopolize or
monopoli2ation resulted from the com
4. <~f Shs, 81 Nx..,lA
of the subsidiary corporations to the New
Jersey corporation that like restraint
or attempt to monopolize or Inonopoliza-
tion would necessarily arise from agree
ments between one or more OF the sub
sidiary corporations after the transfer
of the stock 10y the New Jersey corpora
ton. For illustration. take the pipe
lines; by the effect of the transfer OF the
II Ock the pipe lines would come under the
control OF various corporations instead of
being subjected to "A uniform control
" various corporations owning the lines
determined in the public interests to 80
combine as to make continuous line.
such agreement or combination would not
be repugnant to the act and yet IL might
be restrained by the decree.
As another example take the Union
Tank Line Company. one OF the sub
cally Of all the tank cars in use by the com.
bination II no possibility existed OF
agreements for the distribution OF these
cars among the subsidiary corporations.
the most serious detriment TO the public
interest might result.
DECREE OF DISSOLUTION AFFIRMED.
"Conceding the merit. abstractly con-
sidered OF these contentious, they are
irrelevant We 80 think. since We constr7ie
the sixth paragraph Of the decree. not "a
depriving the stockholders or the corpora
tions after the dissolution of the combina-
tion Of the power to make normal and law
fni contracts or agreements but as
restraining them from by any device
whatever recreating directly or indirectly
the illegal combination which the decree
dissolved. In other words. We constr,ie
the sixth paragraph Of the decree. not a.
depriving the stockholders or corporations
of the right to live under the law Of the
land but IA compelling obedience to that
law. As therefore the sixth paragraph
as thus construed Ia not amenable to the
criticism directed against it and cannot
produce the harmful results which the
arguments suggest. it was obviously
right.
Of the interests involved and their COM
plexity the delay of thirty days al
lowed Tor executing the decree was too
short and should be extended so "a to
embrace period of at least six moA hs.
So also. in view OF the possible sei ,ous
w w tuo PuOuS tiohh oh
absolute cessation OF interstate COM
merce in petroleum and its product by
such vast agencies as are embraced in
the combination. a result which might
arise from that portion OF the decree
which enjoined carrying on Of interstate
commerce not only by the New Jersey
corporation but by all the subsidiary
companies until the dissolution Of the
combinat ion by the transfer Of the stock
in accordance with the decree should not
have been awarded"
Our conclusion is that tho decree below.
was right and should he affirmed. except
as to the minor matters concerning which
we have indicated the decree should be
modified. Our order will therefore be
one of affirmance. with directions, how
ever. TO modify the decree in accordance
with this opinion. the court below %
retain jurisdiction to the extent neces-
sary TO compel compliance in every
respect with its decree. and it is 40
ordered"