Bryan daily eagle and pilot. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1909-1918, 1911-05-16
THE STANDARD OIL DECISION
Great Combination Declared To Be
Monopoly in Restraint Of Trade
and Its Dissolution Decreed.

Just before going to press Monday
afternoon The Eagle received by wire
the news that the supreme court OF
the United States had declared the
Standard Oil Company monopoly in
restraint of trade and ordered its dis.
solution.
The suit which called forth this de-
cision was instituted in 1906 in the
United States circuit court for the
eastern district Of Missouri. 1t was
brought in the name Of the United
States. The immediate object was to
dissolve the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey.
From the very beginning the bust
ness and the legal worlds recognized
that the suit put the Sherman anti
trust law to the most severe test to
which it had been subjected. The law
had been on the statute book since
1890 and had been the basis Of some
eighteen suits finally passed upon by
the supreme court of the United
States. That the law was constitu-
tional was accepted as settled by these
decisions, but simple as the words of
the statute seemed, there was an alb
sence of unanimity Up regard to its
Interpretation. With that situation
confronting the government and the
defendants, the suit was begun with
the general belief that the entire bust
ness world would feel the effect of the
outcome of the gigantic struggle.
The government claimed that two
sections of the Sherman antitrust law
had been violated. The first section
reads as follows;
Every contract, combination in the
form of trust or otherwise, or CON
spiracy, in restraint of trade or com
merce among the several states or
with foreign nations, is hereby de-
clared to be illegal"
The second section reads:
Every person (Which subsequently
was explained in the statute TO include
corporations) who shall monopolize or
attempt TO monopolize or combine or
conspire with any other person or per-
sons, to monopolize, any part of trade
or commerce among the several
states, or with foreign nations, shall
be deemed guilty OF a msdemeanor. "
The Standard Oil Company Of New
Jersey. some seventy subsidiary cor
porations, John ID, Rockefeller, Will
| liam Rockefeller, Henry NJ. Flagler,
Henry II. Rogers. John d. Archbold,
Oliver II. Payne and Charles NJ. Pratt,
all defendants in the suit, denied the
charges
Months were spent in gathering evil
dence. The general line of attack as
shown by evidence presented by the
government was this; 1t claimed that
about 1870 the Rockefellers and Flag
Ter conceived the idea Of controlling
the petroleum trade of the country,
and a little later entered into a con-
spiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne
and Pratt to gain a control of the oil
business. To carry out this alleged
conspiracy, 1t was claimed, they first
pooled" their interests, then put them
into the hands of trustees or trusts,
and finally when the trust of 1882 was
declared void" in a decision by the
Ohio supreme court in proceedn.
against the Standard Oil Company OF
Ohio, reorganized the Standard Oil
Company of New eJrsey to take over
their interests and to secure monop
oily. Evidence of rebating, OF price
cutting, and of the organization of Sc
cret concerns TO pose as independents