The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-12-06

did not enact from the public too
great and exorbitant prices. It 10 true
that many theorists, and others en-
gagged. in business violating the stat
Ute. have hoped that some such nnc
could be drawn by courts: but NO
court Of authority has ever attempted
II. Certainly there ID nothing In the
decisions Of the latest two cases from
which such . dangerous theory OF
judicial discretion In enforcing this
statute can derive the slightest sane
ton
Force and EHec&iycness Of Saasntc .
Mater Of Growth.
We have been twenty-one years
making this statute effective for the
purposes for which it was enacted.
The Knighe case was discouraglng
and seemed 30 remit to the 6tatse
the whole available power to attack
and suppress the evils of the trusts@
Slowly. however, thu error OF that
Judgment was corrected. and only
IN Tho last three or fcnr Years has
the heavy hand Of the law been laid
upon the great Illegal combinations
that have exercised such an absolute
dominion over many Of our indus
triea Criminal prosecutions have
been brought and number are
pending, but juries have felt averse
to convicting for jail sentencea. and
judges have been most reluctant TO
impose such sentences on men OF re-.
spectable stand,ng In society whose
offense has been regarded az mere
IL statutory. still, as the onense be-
comes better understood and the
committing Of 1t partakes more OF
etudied and deliberate defiance OF the
law, We can be confident that juries
will convict individuals and that jail
sentences will be imposed.
The Remedy In Equity By Dissolution.
In tho Standard on case the Su-
preme and Circuit courts found the
com bination to he = monopoly OF The
interstate business Of refining. trans
porting and marketing petroleum and
jta products, effected and maintain
ed through shlrty-seven dinerent
corporations. the stock of which was
held by New Jersey company. 1t
in erect commanded the dissolution
OF this combination. directed the
traAnsfer aud pro rata distribution
by the New Jersey company OF the
stock held by II In the thirty-s seven
corporations 70 and among its stock
holders; and the corporations ana
individual defendants were enjoined
from consptring or combining to re-
store such monopoly: and all Agree
ments between tina subsidiary COR
poratio tending to produce " bring
about further violations OF The aSt
were enjoined.
n the Tobacco case. tho court found
that the Individual defendants, twenty
nine IN number. had been engaged In
successful EFFORT to acquire complete
dentnion over the manufacture, saiA
aNkd distribution OF tobacco IN this
country and abroad. and that this had
been done by combinations made with
a purposN and effect to atihe compete
tion. control prices. and establish .
monopoly. not only In the manufacture
OF tobacco, hut also Of ttn-foN ana
licorice used IN III manufacture and Of
IT. products Of cigars cigarettes. ana
anu1Es. The tpbAcco guit presented a
than the Standard Oh suit for q de.
crce which would effectuate tho will Of
the court and end the violation Of tbs
statute. There was here no single
holding company as In the case OF the
standard on Trust. The main conn
many Was tbs American Tobacco Com
pany. . manufacturing. selling. and
holding company. Tho plan adopted to
destroy the combination and restore
competition involved the redlvision OF
the capital and plants of the whole
trust between some OF the companies
constituting the trust and new COM
panies organised for the purposes Of
the decree aud made parties to Il, and
numbering. new and old. fourteen.
Situation After Read justnssut.
The American Tobacco Company
(oid), readjusted apital. 81. ooo, 900: the
LiEgett = Meyers Tobacco Company