Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-05-16

sides, rs to the law, the chief JUS
tiee said, were as wide apart as the
poles The same. he said, was true
of the facts
THUS on the one hand with re-
lentless pertinaney and minuteness of
analysis said the chief justice, 1T
is insisted that the facts established
thai the assailed combination took
its birth in u purpose To unlaWfully
acquire wealth BY depressing the
public and destroying the Just right
of others and that its entire career
examples a carrying our of such
wrongful intents. since, It is assert
ed, the pathway of the combination
from the beginning of the time of the
films of the bill is marked with con-
slant wrongs inflicted upon the pub
lie and is strewn with the wrecks
resulting from crushing out, without
regard to law, the individual rights
CT others. 1t is asserted that the exist
ence of he principal corporate defend
ent. the Standard Oil Co., OF New Jer-
sey with its vast accumulation of pre-
pCrty. because of its potency for harm
ana tie dangerous example which its
continued existence AFFORDS is an
open and enduring menace to all free
dom of trade and a reproach to all
modern economic methods
ION the other hand, in a powerful
analysis of the facts it is insisted that
they demonstrate that the origin and
development of the vast business which
the defendant controls was but the re-
suit Of lawful competitive methods
guidei By economic genius of the high
est order. sustained by courage. by
acute insight into the commercial sit
uatlon resulting in the acquisition of
great wealth, but at the same time
serving to stimulate an increased pro-
dnrtion. 20 widely extend the distribu-
ton of the products of petroleum at a
cost largely below that which would
otherwise have prevailed. thus proving
to be at one and the same time a ben
eft to the general public as we'll as an
enormous advantage to Individuals
In this state of affairs the chief JUS
tice seized upon the single point CT
concord. namely, the application of the
two sections of the sherman antitrust
law, as the initial basis of an exam-
nation of the action. The rest of his
opinion divides itself into a consider
alton Of the meaning of the Sherman
anti trust law in the light of the com
mon law and the law of the United
States at the time of it's adoption, the
contentious of the parties concerning
I the act and the scope and effect Of the
decisions of the supreme court the APP
plication of the statute to the facts
and lastly, the remedy IN striving to
Al Al.
Of the law he said that the sole sub
ject with which the first section dealt
was Restraint Of trade" and that the
Attempt to monopolize and monop-
olzationH was the subject of the second
section. The chief justice summarized
his Interpretation Of the common law
and the law of the country at the time
the sherman antitrust law was pas
sed SO far as the first section was con-
cerned. as follows:
"A. That the context manifests THAT
tn" statute was drawn in light of exist
ING practical conception of the law
of restraint of trade, because it groups
as within that class, not only contracts
which were in restraint of trade in
, the subjective sense, but all contracts
or acts which theoretically We're at
i tempts to monopolize, vet which in
practice had come to be considered
as in restraint of trade in Il broad
sense.
"E. That in view Of the many forms
of contracts and combinations which
We're being evolved from existing eco
nomlc conditions, it was deemed essen
tial by an aIl-emhracing enumeration to
make sure that no form Of contract or