Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1911-05-17

NUISI Ju6ktSC NvutSCs ESQ /
ian absolute cessation of interstate
commerce in petroleum and its prod
ucts by such vast agencies as are en-
braced in the combination, result
which might arise from that portion
Of the decree which enjoined carrying
on of interstate commerce not only
by the New Jersey corporation, but
by all of the subsidiary companies
until the dissolution of the combina-
ton by the transfer of the stocks in
accordance with the decree"
The court also extended the time
from one to six months in which the
dissolution must take place.
Important Point Is Made.
Probably the most important prop
osition of law laid down in the opinion
was that the words in the statute.
every restraint Of trade."e are not to
be literally construed, but are to be
construed In the light of reason.
On this point the court held that
the position of the government that
the Supreme court had decided that
any qualification of this phrase was
nrecluded by previous decisions of the
Supreme court was erroneous.
Justice Whites View.
Speaking of this error of the gov
eminent Chief Justice White in his
opinion said:
This is true because as the acts
which may come under the classes
stated in the first section and the re
straint of trade to which that section
applies are not specifically enumerated
or defined, it is obvious that judg
ment must in every case be called
into play to determine whether par
ticular case is embraced within the
statutory classes, and whether if the
act is within such classes its nature
or effect causes it to be restraint
of trade within the intendment of the
t :.
Calls Contentious DIverge
Chief Justice White said that the
,ontentions were as divergent as the
ends of the earth. He spoke of a
Jungle" of testimony and OF law.
The only point in which the two
sides were in accord was that the fret
and second sections of the Sherman
antitrust law controlled the case.
Case Tests Antitrust Law.
The suit which called forth the
Standard OIL decision was begun in
1906 in the United States circuit
court for the eastern district Of Mis-
souri,. 1t was brought in the name Of
the United States. The immediate
object was to dissolve the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey.
From the beginning the business
and legal worlds recognized that the
suit put the Sherman antitrust law
to the most severe test to which IL
had been subjected. The law had
been the basis of about eighteen suits
on which the Supreme court Of the
United States passed. That the Law
was constitutional was accepted as
settled by these decisions, but, simple
as the words Of the statute seemed
there was an absence of unanimity II
regard to its Interpretation. Witt
that situation confronting the govern
ment and the defendants, the suit wal
begun with the general belief that thu
entire business world would feel thu
effect of the outcome of the gigantic
struggle.
Charge Violation Of Two Sections.
;, The government. asserted that tw
sections of the Sherman antitrust lay
l rT,l,l t.,
reads as follows:
Every c6ntract. combination i
the form of trust or otherwise, or cor
spiracy in restraint Of trade or CON
merce among the several states. o
with foreign nations, is hereby de
dared to be Illegal"
The second section reads:
, Every persons (Which subsequent
~ was explained IN the statute to II
clude corporationsl who shall monoI
olize or attempt to monopolize q
combine or conspire with any othe
nerson or persons. to monopolize an
Nart of trade or commerce among TIL
cveral states, or with foreign n:
IONS. shall be deemed guilty of a mi
- eanor."
the Standard OIL company of Ne
Jersey. about seventy subsidiary co
orations, John T. Rockefeller. WI
lem Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagle
'ohn d. Archbold. Oliver H. Payn
nd Charles NJ. Pratt, all defendant
I n the suit. denied the charges.
Gather Evidence for Months.
Months were devoted to gatherir
evidence. The general line of attac
,s shown by evidence presented /
a the government was this:
1t is held that about 1870 the Rock
rellers and Flagler conceived the pla
Of controlling the petroleum trade
he country, and little later entere
conspiracy with Rogers, Archbol
Payne and Pratt to gain control of IL
oil business. To carry out this allege
2 conspiracy, 1t was claimed, they fir
pooled their interests, then put the
into the hands of trustees or trus
and, when the trust of 1882 was d
clared void in decision by the Oh
supreme court in proceeding again
the Standard Oil company of Obi
reorganiZe the Standard Oil compaI
of New Jersey to take over their 1
terests and to assure a monopol
Evidence of rebating, of price cuttir
and of the organization of secret CO
J. Germs to pose as Independents W,
e ELECTED to show that the Standal
e was seeking by unfair means to r
=. strain trade and to procure a mono
y oily.
e. Tried to Disprove Conspiracy.
8 The Standard Oil company intr
s duced evidence to show that the
e had never been such conspiracy.
sought to prove that the Ohio s
preme court did not hold the tru
B. agreement of 1882 void, but mere
required the Standard OIL company
l. Ohio to withdraw from the trus
B. Evidence was produced TO show tn
e rebating had been the order of Il
'r day among all commercial concerl
.rd xhok ,,c{oa outtfnn and ,oouat M,