The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1911-05-19
STANDARD OIL Hello
TO BE ILLEGAL TRUST
Company Doomed by Decision
of Supreme Court.
Corporation and its Subsidiaries VIII
Not Be Excluded from Interstate
Commerce Pending Prepa-
rations for Dissolving.

law, long awaited by an anxious bust
ness world, is also handed down in
connection with the decree.
To accomplish this gigantic dissolu-
ton 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 decree of the circuit court was
modified by the supreme court in only
one other particular. The supreme
court orders that the Standard Oil
company and it's subsidiaries shall not
be excluded from interstate commerce
pending the putting of it's house in or
der.
The decision may be summarized in
brief as follows:
l. The Standard Oil company is IL
legal in it's organization, both as a
combination in restraint of trade and
as monopoly, and it's dissolution is
ordered.
which unreasonobly or unduly restrain
interstate trade and commerce, or
which are unreasonably restrictive of
competitive conditions, are illegal.
3. Contracts, combinations, etc.,
which reasonably restrain interstate
trade and commerce do not come with
in tho DrnhihitiOp nf low
4. To determine whether combina-
ton is guilty of violation of the anti
trust law, it's intent to exclude others
from the same field of industry must
be established.
5. Contracts, combinations, etc., in
restraint of trade, with the one excep-
ton of advancing the development of
business power by unusual methods,
do not constitute violation of the an
thrust act.
6. In holding the Standard Oil COM
pany illegal the court does not assume
to condemn sweepingly similar COM
binations, but intends to pass upon
each case upon it's merits as presented.
The decision of the court fails to
point out any way in which the Stand
ard Oil company may dissolve and re-
organize.
I'VE construe the Decree" said the
court, mot as depriving the stock
holders or the corporations, after the
dissolution of this combination of the
power to make normal and lawful con-
tracts or agreements, but as restrain
ing them from, by any device what
ever creating directly or indirectly the
illegal combination which the decree
dissolved"
The decision of the court in regard
to the general Interpretation of the
Sherman antitrust law was awaited
with greater anxiety by the business
world than the finding of fact in the
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.
The effect of the decision as viewed
by distinguished lawyers, is to insert
the word unreasonable" into the gen
eral prohibition in the antitrust law
against combinations in restraint of
trade. The supreme court has thus
eliminated the uncertainty with which
all business combinations regarded
the Sherman antitrust law, and in the
future it will be up to the government
to draw the line between good and bad
trusts. The antitrust law as construed
by the court, does not apply to all
combinations, contracts or acts in re-
strain of trade, but only to 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 and it's effect was re-
garded in Washington as distinctly re-
assuring to business.
The decision of the court was read
by Chief Justice Edward Douglas
White. 1t was unanimous, with the ex-
ception of Associate Justice Harlan's
dissent Justice Harlan's words were
marked by biting sarcasm He con-
tended that the court had not gone
far enough and he objected to the
words of the chief justice in constru-
ing the scope and purpose of the anti
trust act. He declared that the couT
had rendered an opinion that reversed
an unbroken line of decisions for
fifteen years past. He criticised the
corporation lawyers who, failing to
get an amendment to laws through
congress, came to the United States
courts for relief. He added with
manifest sarcasm that it was becom-
ing fashionable to amend the consti-
tuition and the federal statutes by
judicial constructions.
1t was the Interpretation of the
Sherman law SO as to apply only to
unreasonable combinations to which
Associate Justice Harlan objected SO
vigorously.
Twice in the course Of his opinion
the chief justice strongly limited that
if the Sherman law was not construed
in the light of reason, but instead was
held to be a literal prohibition against
all contracts and combination that had
a tendency to restrain trade. the