The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-05-16
SUIT WAS STARTED IN 1906
Justice Harlan DisSentS, Object
ing 10 Wording Of Decision
Also Scores Court Interpreta.
iiOnS Of Constitutions Wash
ingtOn Officials Fear Little Ef.
feet on Business.


court of the United States handed
down its Interpretation of the Sher-
man antitrust law. long awaited by
the business world. In the first OF
its big decisions in the antitrust
cases the court holds that the Stand
ard oil company is conspiracy in
restraint OF trade and a monopoly in
contraveution OF the Sherman anti.
trust law. Thus. after n fight OF
many years in which every obstacle
known to tho legal profession has
heen interposed. the federal govern
ment has finally succeeded in its
effort TO compel this giant corpora
ton to cast off It's holding company
and again TO separate itself into its
80 constituent parts. To accomplish
this gigantic undertaking. the court
sets a period of six months. This is
an extension Of FIVE months over the
time allotted in the dissolution decree
OF the lower court.
The decision of the court in regard
to the general Interpretation Of tho
Sherman antitrust law was awaited
with greater anxiety by the business
world than the finding OF fact in tho
Standard Oil case. The court holds
that It is necessary to distinguish be-
tween reasonable" and "unreason-
able" restraint Of trade as covered
by the Sherman antitrust law.
As Viewed by Lawyers.
Tho effect of the decision, as
viewod by distinguished lawyers, is
to insert the word unreasonable"
into tho general prohibition IN the
Sherman antitrust law against com
binations in restraint Of trade. Tho
supreme court has thus eliminated
the uncertainty with which all bust.
uess combinations regarded the sher.
man antitrust law. and IN the future
II will be up to the government to
draw the line between good and bad
trusts. The antitrust law as con.
strued by the court does not apply to
all combinations. contracts or acts in
restraint Of trade, but only tc those
which are shown to be unreasonable
and in which the intent to form an
unlawful conspiracy or monopoly can
be proved or inferred The decision
Of the court and it's general effect
was regarded In Washington as dis.
tinctly reassuring to business
The decision OF the court was read
by Chief Justice Edward Douglass
White. II was unanimous, with the
exception of Associate Justice Har-
lans dissent. Justice Harlans words
were marked by biting sarcasm. He
contended that the court had not
gone far enough and he objected
particularly to the words OF the chief
Justice In constituting the purpose OF
the antitrust act He declared that
the court had rendered an opinion
that reversed an unbrOken line of do
cisions for Is years past. He criti.
cisod the corporation lawyers Who
falling TO get an amendment to laws
through congress. came 10 tho United
States courts for relief. lie added
with manifest sarcasm, that II was
becoming fashionable to amend the
constitution and the federal statutes
by judicial construction.
II WAS the Interpretation OF the
Sherman law so as TO apply only to
unreasonable combinations TO which
Associate Justice Harlan objected so
~Eorously.
No Way Suggested.
The decisions OF the court fail to
point out any way IN which the
Standard on company moy dlasolye
aud reoreanlze we cohstrte the
decree" said the court. mot as de.
priying the Stockholders or the corpo.
rations. after The dissolution OF this
combination, OF the power 20 mako
normal and lawful contracts or agree
ments, but as restraining them from
by any device whatever. rc-ensagins
directly or Indirectly IN the illegal
combination which the deerae dis.
solved.
HISTORY OF The CASE