The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-05-16
STOCK MARKET IS STRONG
DESPITE OIL DECISION
(Coatinusd from page -.

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 IL 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 view
ed by distinguished lawyers. Is TO in
sert the word unreasonable into the
general prohibition in the Sherman
antitrust law against combinations
In restraint OF trade. The supreme
court has thus eliminated the uncer'
tainty with which ali business com
binations regarded the Sherman anti
trust law, and in the future IL 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 combina-
tions, contracts. or acts In restraint OF
trade, but only 10 those which are
shown To be unreasonable and In
which the intent 10 form an unlawful
conspiracy or monopoly can be proved
or inferred. The decision OF the court
and its general effect was regarded
In Washington as distinctly reassuring
10 business.
The chief justice following his
usual custom, rendered the opinion
without any notes. The recital OF
the case was dramatic, the jurist EN-
phasizing his points by vigorous ges-
lures. raising his voice at times, and
again rapping his desk.
With eloquent sentences he sum
med up the tremendous magnitude
of the case and the gigantic work
which was before the court.
AS penalties which are not author
lied by law may not be inflicted by
judicial authority" continued the de-
cision, lit follows that TO meet the
situation with which we are con
fronted, the application OF remedies
twofold in character becomes es
sential: First, TO forbid the danger
in the future OF acts like these which
We have found have been done In
the past, which would be violatiye
of the statute.
Second, the exertion OF such
measure OF relief as will effectually
dissolve the combination found TO
exist in violation OF the statute and
thus neutralize the extension and
continually operating force which the
possession OF the power unlawfully
obtained has brought, and will con
tinue to bring about
In applying remedies for this pur-
pose, however. the fact must not be
overlooked that injury to the public
by the prevention OF an undue re
straint, or the monopolization OF the
trade or commerce is the foundation
upon which the provisions OF the
statute stand, and moreover one OF
the fundamental purposes OF the sta
tute is 10 protect, not 10 destroy the
rights OF property.
The court below adjudged that the
New Jersey corporation insofar as
1t held stock OF the various corpora
tons was a combination in violation
OF the act and an attempt TO monopol-
lie or a ymonopolization contrary TO
the second section OF the act. II
commanded the dissolution of the
combination and therefore in effect
directed the transfer by the New Jer-
sey corporation back TO the stock
holders OF the various subsidiary cor
porations entitled TO the same
amount OF the stock which had been
turned over TO the New Jersey COM
pany in exchange for its stock.
so far as the owners OF the stock
of the subsidiary corporations and
the corporations themselves were
concerned after the stock had been
transferred, section six OF the decree
enjoined them from in any way con-
spring TO violate the act or TO mon
opolize or attempt to monopolize in
virtue of their ownership OF the stock
| transferred TO them and prohibited
all agreements between these sub
sidiary corporations of other stock
holders In the future. tending to pro-
duce or bring about further violations
OF the act.
"By section seven, pending the ac-
com plishing the dissolution u the
com ination by the transfer Of stock
and until IL was consummated, the
defendants named In section one, con
| stituting all the corporations TO which
we have referred, were enjoined from
engaging in or carrying interstate
commerce. And by section nine. among
other things q delay OF 30 days was
granted TOT tue carrying lH(O erect
the directions of the decree
$50 far as the decree held that the
ownership OF the stock OF the New
Jersey corporation constituted a COM
| bination In violation OF the first sec
ton and an attempt to create a mon.
opoly or TO monopolize under the sec
ond section and commanded the dis
solution OF the combination, the de-
cree was clearly appropriate. And
this also is true of section five of the
decree which restrained both the New
Jersey corporation and the subsidiary
corporations from doing things which
would recognize or give effect to fur.
Their ownership In the New Jersey cor.
poration of stocks which were ordered
to be transferred.
The contention Is that, insofar as
the relief by way of injunction, which
was awarded by section and against
the stockholders OF the subsidiary
corporations or the subsidiary corpora
tions themselves after the transfer OF
stock by the New Jersey corporation
was completed In conformity 10 the
decree. that the relief awarded was
| too broad:
Because IL was not sufficiently spe-
cific and tended TO cause those who
were within the embrace of the order
to cease TO be under the protection OF
1 -