The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-16

| sey corporation by the increase of its stock and the transfer to it of the l stocks of so many otrer corporations aggregating so vast capital, gives | rise. in and of itself in the absence of countervailing circumstances to say the | least to the prima facie presumption of | intent and purpose to maintain the dominancy over the oil industry, not as result of normal methods of. indus | trial development but by new means of combination which were resorted to in order that greater power might be added than would otherwise have arisen l had normal methods been followed. the whole with the purpose of excluding others from the trade and thus cen | tralizing in the combina ton a perpetual control of the movements of petroleum and it's products in the channels of in- terstate commerce.
 Conclusive Evidence
 "B-Because the prima facie pre- sumption of intent to restrain trade, to monopolize and to bring about mon opolization resulting from the act of expanding the stock of the New Jer- sey corporation ald vesting 1t with such vast control of the oil industry Is made conclusive by considering CD. the conduct of the persons or corpora tions who were mainly instrumental
 in bringing about the extension of
 
 before the consummation of that result and prior to the formation of the trust agreements of 1879 and 1882; f2) by considering the proof as to what was done under those agreements and the acts which immediately preceded the vesting of power in the New Jersey corr poration as well as by weighing the modes in which the power vested in that corporation has been exerted and the results which have arisen from it.P In subjecting to scrutiny the acts and doings of the Standard Oil In the long distant past for the purpose of getting assistance in discovering intent and purpose, Chief Justice White left a cutting remark.
 we think no disinterested mind can survey the period In question without being irrisistibly given to the conclusion that the very genius for commercial development and organization which 1t would seem was manifested from the beginning soon begot an intent and purpose to exclude others. which was frequently manifested by acts and deal
 ngs wholly inconsistent with the the ory that they were made with the sin gle conception of advancing the de- Velopment of business power by usual methods, but which on the contrary necessarily involved the intent to drive others from the field and to exclude
 
 thus accomplish the mastery which was the end in view And considering the period from the date of the trust agree ments of 1879 and 1882, up to the time of the expansion of the New Jersey corporation. the gradual extension of the power over the commerce in oil en- sued, the decision of the supreme court of Ohio, the tardiness or reluctance in conforming to the commands of that decision, the method first adopted, and that which finally eliminated in the plan of the New Jersey corporation, all additionally serve to make manifest the continued existence of the intent which we have previously indicated and which, among other things, impelled the ex- pansion of the New Jersey corporation. The exercise of power which resulted from that organization fortifies the foregoing conclusion since the devel- opment which came, the acquisition here and there which ensued of every efficient means by which competition could have been arrested, the slow but resistless methods which followed by which means of transportation was ab- sorbed and brought under control, the system of marketing which was adopt ed and by which the country was dfvid- ed into districts and the trade in each district in oil was turned over to a designated corporation within the combination, and all others were ex cluded, all lead the mind up to con viction of a purpose and Intent which we think is so certain as practically to cause the subject not to be within the domain of reasonable contention. Unwarranted Inference "The inference that no attempt to monopolize could have been intended and that no monopolization resulted from the acts complained of, since it Is established that a very small per centage of the crude oil produced was controlled by the combination. is un- warranted As subs tantia1 power over the crude product was the inevitable result of the absolute control which existed over the refined product, the monopolization of u e one carried with it the power to control the other and if the inference which this situation suggests were developed, which we deem it unnecessary to do, they might well serve to add additional cogency to the presumption of intent to monop- olize which we have found arises from the unquestioned proof on other sub jects"
 The chief justice at one point in his opinion took up some of the conten- tiops of the defendants, particularly that based on the famous Knight case criticised by Colonel Roosevelt. This
  trust law could not be applied to the Standard Oil because to do so would be to extend the power of Congress be- yond the reach of its authority The chief justice said this contention as to the holding In the Knight case was unsound.
 The court then considered the argu- ments that the statute could not be ap- piled under the facts in the case without impairing rights of property and destroy- ing the freedom of contract of trade which is essentially necessary to the well being of society. But the ultimate foun- dation of all these arguments.' said the |chief justice. lis the assumption that reason may not be resorted to in inter- preting and applying the statute and therefore that the statute unreasonably restricts the right to contract and un- reasonably operates upon the rights to acquire and hold property. AS the premise is demonstrated to be unsound by the construction we have given the statute, of course. the propositions which rest upon that premise need not be further noticed"
 The Remedy
 Finally the chief justice came to apply the remedy. He said that ordinarily where violations Of the act were found to have been committed 1t would suffice to enjoin further violations. In cas-, however, where monopolization or at tempt to monopolize was established or the existence of a combination is proved the continuance of which was perennial. violation of the statute. further relief was called for.
 Lower Court Affirmed