The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-16

/ H f
found this Justification in tho common
law of the forefathers. and in the gem
eral law of the country at the time tn.
Sherman antitrust law was M ss,,i
In short the court held that tho tech
nical words OF the statute were TO hs
given the meaning which these words
mad In the common law, and In the Law
of the country at the timo OF the on.
actment, This meaning OF the words.
according to the court, called for tho
exercise OF reason In determing what
restraint OF trade were prohibited
Chief justices Opinion.
chief Justice White. in his opinion,
hrst reviewed the preliminary ptoceed-
'nGs In the case i'll tho Circuit Court
or the United States for the E,a stern
District of Missouri. He restated the
essential points in the bill of the gov.
ernment asking for the dissolution or
the Standard OiNand the answer cues
tioning the Jurisdiction of. the court
and denying tho claims OF the govern
ment. He dismissed the DIGESTION to
the Jurisdiction In few words. by
holding that 1t was notSwell founded.
he then came to the arguments ashto
the law and the facts In the case saw
Ing that out of the Jungle" of law and
facts both sides were agreed onIv on
one thing, and that was that the do
termination of the controversy rested
upon the proper construction and an
PLEA ton of the hrst and second sec
lions of the antitrust act. The views
OF the two Sides. as to the law. the
Chief Justice said, were as wide apart
as the poles Tho same he said was
true as to the facts
Thus. on the one hand, with ralent-
less pertinac1ty and minuteness OF
analysis" said the Chief Justice. .at
is Insisted that the facts established
that tho assailed combination xooIe ia
oirth In purpose to unlewfully ac-s
quire wealth by depressing the public
and destroying the just rights of 9th,
ers. and that its entire career exem-
pliies an tneXorabIe carrying out ~
such wrongful intents. since. It ia
serted. the pathway OF the com binatton
from the beginning of tho time OF the
ming OF the bill Is marked with con-
slant proofs OF wrong inflicted upon
the public. and is strewn with tina
wrecks resulting from crushing out.
without regard TO Law, the Individual
rights OF others.
Called Enduring Menace. E
IT Is asserted that the existence OF
INC principal corporate defendant tha
Standard Oil Company. sof New Jersey.
with Its vast accumulation OF property.
because OF It's potency for ha rim and
me dangerous example which Its con-
enduring menace to all freedom OF
trade and q byword and reproach 10
oil modern economic methods. TX
On the other hand, in powerful
analysis OF the facts, 1t Is Insisted that
they demonstrate that tho origin and
development OF the vast business which
the defendants control was but the re-
suit OF lawful competitive methods.
guided by economic genius OF The high i.
est order. sustained by courage BY n
Keen Insight into the commercial D osI
ton, resulting In tho acquisition or
great wealth. but at the same TINA
serving to stimulate an incsca sed pro-
duction. 10 widely extend the distri-
hution or the products OF pe.roieum
at a cost largely below that when
would otherwise have prevailed thug
proving to be a one and the same time
a benefaction to the general public as
we'll ASIAN enormous advantage to i'm
dividuals" q
In this state OF affairs the Chfer
Justice seized upon the single point
OF concord, namely, the appiica ton Of Y
tho two sections of thu sherman anti
trust law as tho Initial basis OF an
cShminati ton of the contention. Tile
rest OF his opinion divided Itself into
a corstderatio ton OF the meaning OF tina
Sherman antitrust law In the light ,or 4
the common law and the law OF the
Continued on Third Pa9e,l Il