The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1911-05-16

the pipe lines. By the effect Of III,
transfers OF the stock, the pipe line
would come under the control OF var
ious corporations instead OF bein,
subjected to a uniform control. i
various corporations owning the The.
determined that IL was TO the publ,
interests 10 so combine as 20 make ,
continuous line. such agreement OF
dombination would not be repung
ant TO the act. and yet IL nigh b,
restrained by the decree. AS anothel
example. take the Union Tank Lin,
company. one OF the subsidiary cor
porations. the owner practically OF al
the tank cars used by the combina
ton. IL no possibility existed o.
agreements for the distribution O.
these cars among the subsidiary cor
porations. the most serious detrimen
TO the public interest might result.
History Of the Case.
The suit which called FORTH to-day's
decision was instituted in 1906 In ths
United States Circuit Court for the
Eastern District OF Missouri. II was
brought in the name OF the United
States. The immediate object was e
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 &c
which II had been subjected. The
law had been on the statute book
since 1890. and had been the basis
or some eighteen suits finally passed
upon by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. That the law was CON
stitutional was accepted as settled BY
these decisions. but simple as the
words OF the statute seemed. there
was an absence OF unanimity In re
gard TO its Interpretation. with tina,
situation confronting the government
and the defendants. the suit was be
gun with the general belief that the
entire business world would feel the
effect OF the outcome OF the gigantic
struggle.
Sections OF Law Violated.
Tho government claimed that two
sections OF the Sherman antitrust
law had been violated. The first sec
ton reads as follows:
Every contract, combination in the
form or trust or otherwise, or con
spiracy In restraint OF trade or com
merce among the several States. OF
with foreign nations, is hereby de
clared to be Illegal"
The second section reads:
Every person (Which subsequently
was explained in the statute TO in
clude corporations) who shall monop
ollie. or attempt to monopolize. OF
combine or conspire with any other
person or persons TO monopolize any
part OF trade or commerce among the
several States. OF with foreign ma
tions. shall be deemed guilty of a mis-
demeanor.
The Standard OIL Company OF New
Jersey. some seventy subsidiary cor
porauons. John ID. Rockefeller. VIII
lam Rockefeller. Henry NJ. Flagler
Henry III. Rogers. John u. Archbold
Oliver II. PAYNE and Charles II. Pratt
all defendants in the suit. denied the
charges.
The Plan Of Attack.
Months were spent In gathering evi
dence. The general line OF attack as
shown by the evidence presented BY
the government was this: II claimed
that about 1870 the Rockefellers and
Flagler conceived the idea OF control
ling the petroleum trade OF the coun
try. and a little later entered into a
conspiracy with Rogers. ArchboId
Payne and Pratt TO gain control OF
the oil business. To carry out this
alleged conspiracy n was claimed
they first pooled" their interests
then put them into the hands Of trus
tees or trusts" and finally when the
trust OF 1882 was declared void" I'm a
decision nv the Ohio Supreme Court IN
p proceeding against the Standard OF
Company Of Ohio. reorganized the
Standard OIL Company OF New Jersey
TO take over their interests and 70 So
cure monopoly. Evidence OF rebat.
ing. Of price cutting and OF the organi
zatlon OF secret concerns 20 pose as in.
dependents was ELECTED TO show that
the Standard was seeking by unfair
means 10 restrain trade and TO pro
cure a monopoly. In these effects the
court found n restraint on commerce
Remedy for Situation.
The court then proceeded to evolve
2 plan 10 remedy the situation. II en-
tered a decree enioining the Standard
oil Company Of New Jersey from ex.
ercising any control. by reason OF Us
stock ownership. over the subsidiary
companies. Furthermore. n enjoined
these subsidiary companies from pay.
ing any dividends n the Standard OF
Company ~ New Jersey. II put a pro.
vision iu tho decree 20 enjoin any pos.
sthle evasion Of the decree by the or.
ganlzation or a similar combination or
the conveyance ~ the property 10 ono
or the defendants Unless the defend.
ants should sever the relations and
cease the combination within thirty
DAYS. thoy were 10 be enjoined from
cngacing I'm interstate commerce until
they did cease the combination.
Tho Standard on Company OF New
Jersey n was claimed. controlled from
% 70 ~ per cent. Of the oil business
~ the country. with n financial power
beyond that possessed by any other
combination ever known
nCM0COlTQ OI0CU