Weekly journal-miner., 1911-05-17
IN STANDARD
 O|L CASE RENDERED

majority of the stock of each of sev-
 eral corporations engaged in com
 meree in the same articles among
 the states, or with foreign nations
 to restrict competition therein, rend-
 cred the power thus vested in the
 corporation or persons greater, more easily exercised, more durable and
 more effective than that previously
 held by the stockholders. In these
 effects, the court found a restraint
 in commerce.
 The court then proceeded to evolve a plan to remedy the situation,
 It entered a decree, enjoining the
 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey from exercising any control, by reas- on of it's stock ownership, over the
 subsidiary companies from paying any dividends to the Standard Oil
 Company of New Jersey. It put a provision in the decree to enjoin any possible evasion of the decree
 by the organization of a similar combination or of the conveyance of the property to one of the defend ants, unless the defendants should sever the relations and cease the combination within thirty days, they were to be enjoined from engaging in interstate commerce until they did cease the combination.
 From the Circuit Court, the case was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States. The record laid before the higher tribunal prob ably was the largest ever prepared in an American case. The petition, pleadings, testimony, opinions and decree constituted twenty two large volumes or more than 800 pages each.
 The ease was first argued before the Supreme Court in March, 1910, but it was restored to the docket for reargument. The case was heard the second time in January. 1911, the latter time before a full bench. Noted attorneys appeared on either sides. For the government Attor- ey General Wickersnam and Frank B. KellOg, special assistant to the Attorney General, addressed the court. For the Standard Oil, there John c. Johnson, of Phila- delphia, John G. Milburn, of New York, and D. T. Watson of Pittsburg.
 In his address to the court, Mir Kellogg who took all the testimony in the ease on behalf of the govern ment, said that the Standard Oil was not a natural growth but wash born and reared in fraud and oppression. and "hangs over the commerce of this country today like a threatening cloud"
 The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, he told the court, controlled from S5 to 97 per cent of the oil business of this country with finan- ,ial power beyond that possessed by any other combination ever known !, The combination he added, was "made | effective and powerful by reason of | preferential rates and rebates in ! the greatest ever known 10 have been made and by unfair and l brutal methods of competition, which , in and of themselves between mer- chants and eOrner-grocery men would | not be dangerous, but in the hands 'f a combination of this size and of this power, are the most dangerous to independent dealers, and men engaging in known in commerce..
 The other side of the contest was by John G. Johnson, in he closing argument in the case. He declared that the country did not uffer by the mere largeness of the but prOfited. For the Illeged sins that the corporation had he argued, there existed m adequate remedy at law and there ore it was not necessary for equity O step in to dissolve the corpora ion. He denied that rebates were ,eing accepted by tine corporation low or that it was cutting prices IT organizing secret concerns, and the governments ref renees to them in the past as nee ssary to "give the proper color and aise the proper amount of indigna- ] ion'' in the case. He declared that , he Standard Oil organization was the esult of orderly growth.
 "'Let the channels of commerce - .e open for all who may desire to nterH said he in closing "whether ritn ocean steamer or with dugout, -54L Dn.lyafo11ar rrao1tb or h