The Oskaloosa herald., 1911-05-18
STANDARD OIL
. MUST DISSOLVE
u.S.Supreme Court Decides Against
the Great Corporation.
AN IMPORTANT POINT IS MADE
Proposition Laid Down That Words
Every Restraint of Trade" Are
to be Construed in Light of
Reason, Not Literally.

court of the United States against the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey,
1t being held that it is a conspiracy
and monopoly in restraint of trade
The decree of the lower court was
affirmed, being modified in particulars
which Chief Justice White said were
extremely slight.
Justice Harlan Dissents.
Justice Harlan announced a dis
senting opinion.
BY the reorganization of the Stand
ard Oil of New Jersey the chief JUS
tice said that there was prima facie
evidence that there was an endeavor
to control and monopoize; that fur
Their investigation made this con-
elusive presumption of an intent to
restrain trade. He said only the ques-
ton of remedy remained for consid-
Grafton.
Business Need Not Cease.
The decree of the lower court was
modified so that there need not be
IAN absolute cessation of interstate
commerce In petroleum and its prod.
ucts by such vast agencies as are en-
| braced in the combination, a 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" 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
precluded by previous decisions of the
Supreme court was erroneous.
Justice writes 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, 1t Is obvious that judg-
ment must in every case be called
into play to determine whether a par
ticular case is embraced within Il e
statutory classes. and whether If tn
act is within such classes its natur.
or effect causes 1t to be restraint
Of trade within the intendment of the
& t.
Calls Contentious Divergent.
Chief Justice White said that the
contentious 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 first
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 in
regard to its Interpretation. With
that situation confronting the govern.
ment and the defendants, the suit was
begun with the general belief that the
! entire business world would feel the
effect of the outcome of the gigantic
struggle.
Charge Violation of Two Sections.
| The government asserted that two
sections Of the Sherman antitrust law
had been violated The first section
resds as follows:
Every contract, combination in
the form of trust or otherwise, or con-
spiracy In restraint of trade or com
merce among the several states, or
with foreign nations. is hereby de-
clared to be Illegal
The second section reads:
Every persons (which subsequent
ly was explained in the statute to in
clude corporations who shall monop-
Ollie or attempt to monopoliZe or
combine or consptre with any other
person or persons, to monopolize any
part of trade or commerce among the
several states. or with foreign ma
tions, shall be deemed guilty of mis-
demeanor."
The Standard Oil company OF New
Jersey, about seventy subsidiary cor
porations, John D. Rockefeller, VIII
! liam Rockefeller, Henry NJ. Flagler'