Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-01-03
j. 5, SUPREME court
HANDS p0WN DECISIONS
IN IMPORTANT CASES

the acquisition and ownership of a
holding company of stock in other
! in other corporations. The govern.
ment argues that whenever a holding
company necessarily stiles or direct
ly aud substantially restricts free
competition in commerce, the United
States has power to protect such
commerce.
In the contest regarding the ans
wer to the question Of what is re-
straint of trade or commerce?" the
! first dispute is over the interpreta.
ton of RESTRAIN of trade" as equiva-
lent to 1.-THE absence OF free competi-
ton" The government advances the
theory that reduction of competition
means restraint on trade and con-
sequently higher prices. The corpor-
atoms urge that a combination of
producers may mean a reduction of
expenses and consequently lower
prices.
The government further contends
that the Sherman antitrust law refers
only to such restraints as are direct
and material. One Judge in passing
on the Tobacco case in the circuit
court held that the law referred to
every restraint without regard to d.
rectness or materiality. 1t is said
that this doctrine would stif1e legiti-
mate business. The defendant organ
izations do not press this argument so
much, because they claim in their
cases that no direct and material re-
straint of commerce exists. This claim
is based upon the argument that they
are engaged principally, not in in
terstate commerce as were the rail-
roads in the Northern Securities case,
but in the manufacture Of goods,
which may go into interstate CON-
merce later.
The third division of the contest
is over the Interpretation of the word
"monopolize." The Standard Oil is
particularly concerned with this
phase of the controversy. because the
lower court found that it was at
tempting to monopolize. Attorneys
for the company advance the argu.
ment that under the law it could le-
gally acquire the trade OF the world
in an article provided it did nothing
to prevent others from competing
with it. They declare the Standard
Oil has done nothing to prevent 9TH
ers from competing. Success has
come to it, so they say, because of
"untiring energy, infinite skill, abund-
ant capital and steady reinvestment
of early profits" The government
has piled up volume on volume to
support it's contention that success
was achieXed by unfair competition.
The corporation tax cases, eighteen
in all, involveentirely different argu-
ments. The corporation tax provis-
ions of the Payne-Aldrich tariff act
provide for "a special excise tax with
respect to the carrying on or doing
business" by corporations, "equivalent
to one per centum upon the entire
net income over and above $4,000"
Each of the cases was originated in
various circuit courts by persons fl
nancially interested in the tax not be-
ing paid. These persons asked the
courts to enjoin the tax by respec-
tive corporations because the tax was
unconstitutional. The validity OF the
tax was upheld in each case.
The law is opposed principally on
the grounds that it attacks the SOW
ereignty of the states by taking state
franchises; that it invades the right
to due process Of law by levying tax
on classes fixed arbitrarily; and that
it is direct tax not a&'portloned
among the states as required by the
constitution.