The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1911-05-16
VICTORY FOR NATION



ment. He dismissed the objection to
the turisdiction in a few words by
holding that IL was not well founded.
He then came TO the arguments as to
the laws and the facts in the case.
saying that out Of the Jungle of law
and facts both sides were agreed only
in one thing. and that was that the
determination OF the controversy rest
ed upon the proper construction and
application Of the first or second sec
lions OF the antitrust act The views
or the two sides. as 20 the law. the
Chief Justice said. were as wide
apart as the poles. The same. he
said. was true as to the facts.
. Unlawful Object.
Thus on the one hand. with relent.
less pertinacity and minuteness of
analysis" said the Chief Justice. lit
Is insisted that the facts established
that the assailed combination took its
birth In a purpose to unlawfully ac-
quire wealth by depressing the public
and destroying the just rights OF 9TH
ere. and that its entire career exem.
pines an memorable carrying out OF
such wrongful intents. since. II is as
serted. the pathway OF the conbina.
OF the filing OF the bill Is marked
with constant proofs of wrongs in.
hicted upon the public and is strewn
with the wrecks resulting from crush.
Ing out. without regard TO law, the in.
dividual rights OF others.
1t Is asserted that the existence of
the principal corporate defendant
the Standard OIL Company of New
Jersey with its vast accumulation of
property. because OF its potency for
harm and the dangerous example
which It's continued existence affords.
is an open and enduring menace 20
all freedom OF trade and a by.word
and reproach to all modern economic
methods. esA5z
"On the other hand. In n powerful
analysis OF the facts. Il il insisted
that they demonstrate that the origin
and development OF the vast business
which the defendants control was but
the result OF lawful competitive meth
DDS, guided by economic genius of the
highest order. sustained by courage.
by keen insight into the commercial
situation. resulting in the acquisition
OF great wealth. but Mt the same time
serving to stimulate an increased pro.
duction. to widely extend the distrI.
1NNAoh VI Ahf HNNuutlH Oh petroleum.
at a cost largely below that which
would otherwise have prevailed. thus
proving 10 he ar one and the same
time "A benefaction OF the general
public as well as an enormous advant.
age to individuals"
Where Antitrust Law Hits.
In this state OF affairs the Chief
Justice seized upon the single point
OF concord uarfRo1Ns - =
the two sections of the Sherman anti
trust law. as the initial basis OF an
examination Of the contention
In striving to get at the meaning
or the two sections OF the law. he
said that the sole subject with which
the first section dealt was restraint
OF trade" and that the attempt 10
monopolize and monopolization' was
tho subject Of the section section
The Chief Justice said that in getting
AT the meaning OF these words he
would be guided by the principle that
where words are applied in n statute.
which at the time had n we'll known
meaning in common law. or in the
law OF this country. they were pre-.
sumed 10 have been used In this
sense unless the context compels 10
the contrary. He summarized his
search into the common law and the
law OF the country az the time the
sherman antitrust law was passed.
so far as the first section was con
cerned. as follows:
"(al That the contest manifests
that the statute was drawn IN The
Hight OF the existing practical con-
ception OF the law of restraint 81
trade. because ~ groups as within
that class. not only contracts which
we're in restrain 81 trade in the sub
1ectiNe sense. but an contracts or
acts which theoretically wore At
temps 10 monopolize. vet which in
d practice had CONS % De considered
a. In restraint OF trade in n broad
sense
"th) That 81 View ~ Tho many
forms OF contracts and combinations
which were being evolved from ev-
tsttng economic conditions % vra-
Seemed essential hy on aii-embrar-
ng enumeration 60 make sure frn.
no form Of contract or combination
by which an undue restrain - Inter-
state or foreign commerce uas
brought about could save such re-
rtrant from Coui-m nation. Tho
statute under this view evidenced
me intent not 20 restrain tho right
20 make and enforce contrnrts ,vhe-
fler resulting from combination or
otr"-v - which did NOT unduIv 70
strain Interstate or foreign com
uefce huf tu protect that r0fnruer~e
Irnn being restrained nv methods
whether old or new which would r0r-
affufe an ferfcrenre that 4s Hu
undue restraint
fNN ANA AZ INC NHfIff HN'a m"fa
embraced in the Trur fefpr u.fra no.
eNrrcselv defined. since the rrunnern-
Ton addressed ifscif simpI. fatIlrsrs
or acts those classes being broad
eunurn 20 embrace every Conceivable
. contract or Combination which rlutf
- made r0rcerrlur trade or conn
uerce or The subjects Of such com.
rInrrN. ana thus caused nrw HHf ffr.s.a
hF any ~ The enumerated methods
anywhere In the whole nsfH uf hH.
man activity 90 DO iliern1 10 In rr-
afraInf ~ trade. Dr. Inevitably follows
That the provision necessarily called
Tor tho exercise ~ JUDGMENT which
required hat some standard rrnHfT
DO rea0rfed 90 for che purpose Dr de-
ferminiuE whether tho rr0nfhIfInrr
contained in The statute had 1r had
not in any given case boon rInfHf.f
Thus NOT auerlfvIuE huf Individuality
forfcmp plating ard requiring u stan.
dard ~ reason which haH boon ...
piled no the common law and fr frIa
country ln dealing With ruhfrffr ~
The character embraced Hs fNr aftf.
ute. was intended fa nn f.. f... ...
used for flr rnrrnr. of ..rH..