Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1911-05-19

tanned was brought, and Will conllnuo
to bring about.
In applying remedies for this pur'
pose, however, the fact must not DS
overlooked that injury to the pubic.
that prevention of an undue restraint,
or the monopolization of trade or
commerce is the foundation upon Wn1cn
the prohibitions of the statute rest and
moreover that one of the fundamental
purposes of the statute is to protect.
not to destroy the rights OF property.
Must Turn Back Stock.
"The court below adjudged that the
New Jersey corporation, insofar as 1t
held stock of the various corporations,
a combination in violation OF the act
and an attempt to monopolize or mo-
nopolization contrary to the sectlon Oh
the act. 1t commanded the dissolution
of the combination and therefore d.
reefs the transfer by the New Jersey
corporation back to the stockholders
of the various subsidiary corporations
entitled to the same amount of the
stock which had been turned over to
the New Jersey company in exchange
for it's stock.
$50 far as the owners of the stock OF
the subsidiary corporations and the
corporations themselves were con-
cerned, after the stock had been trans
ferred section of the decree enJo1ned
them from in any way consplrlng or
combining to violate the act or to mo-
nopolize or attempt to monopolize IN
virtue of their ownership OF the stock
transferred to them and prohibited all
agreements between the subsidiary
corporations of other stockholders in
the future, tending to produce or bring
about further violations of the act.
Enjoined From Interstate Trade.
by section Z, pending the accom-
plishment of the dissolution OF the
combination by the transfer OF the
stock and until it was consummated,
| the defendants named in section 1,
constituting all the corporations to
which we have referred, were enJoined
| from engaging in or carrying on in
| terstate commerce. And by section .,
among other things, a delay OF thirty
days was granted for the carrying into
effect of the decree.
| $50 far as the decree held ownership
in the New Jersey corporation constr
tuted a monopoly in violation OF the
| first section and an attempt to create
| a monopoly under the second section
and commanded the dissolution of the
combination, the decree was clearly
appropriate"
Not Every Restraint of Trade.
| Probably the most important propo-
sition of law laid down in the opinion
was that the words in the statute,
every restraint of trade are not to
be literally construed, but are to be
construed in the light of reason.
On this point the court held that
the position of the government that
the Supreme court had decided that
any qualification of this phrase was
precluded by previous decisions of the
| Supreme court was erroneous. Speak
ing Of this error of the government,
the chief justice said:
"This is true because as the acts
which may come under the classes
| stated in the first section and the re-
| straint of trade to which that section
applies are not specifically enumera-
ted or defined, it is obvious that judg-
ment must in every case be called into
play in order to determine whether
| particular case is embraced within the
| statutory classes, and whether, if the
act is within such classes it's nature
or effect causes it to be restraint OF
| trade within the intendment of the
act
Holds Court Has jurisdiction.
Chief Justice White first went into
an extensive recital of the facts in the
case and then held that the court had
| jurisdiction over the suit, which had
been questioned by the Standard Oil.
The chief justice, following his usual
custom, rendered the opinion without
any notes. The recital of the case
was dramatic in the extreme, the
| iurist emphasizing his points by vigor
Gus gestures, raising his voice at times,
and again rapping his desk.
| With eloquent sentences he summed
I'D the immense magnitude of the case
| and the gigantic work which was be
| fore the court.
The fact that the court continued to
sit past the regular hour set for ad
| iournment is unprecedented in its re-
| cent history.
The chief justice traced the devel
opment of the term monopoly
through the English law. He referred
to the fact that the Standard Oil COM
pany had been called an enormous oc-
topus, and yet he said great benefits
had come from it's life as a corpora
| ton.
The chief justice said the conten-
tons in the case were as divergent as
| the ends of the earth He spoke OF
Jungle" of testimony and of law.
The only point in which the two
sides were in accord was that the first
and second sections of the Sherman