The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-01-02
GREATEST OF TRUST
CAMPAIGNS RESUMED
Government Tries to Compel the
Standard Oil and Tobacco
Combines to Dissolve.
Concluded From Page One.

Of them united in decree, holding many
OF tho corporations had entered into a
combination 'In restraint Of trade" in
violation OF the first section OF tho Sher-
man antitrust act.
These three decrced The dissolution OF
this combination. Other corporations, in
Guiding the United Cigar Stores COM
pany. the Imperial Tobacco company and
the British American Tobacco company.
None were held TO be "monopolizing' in
violation of the second section of the
Sherman antitrust law.
The application OF the Sherman anti
trust law to these two organizations in
wolves not only an investigation into the
facts. but includes an Interpretation OF
the law Itself The principal uncertain
ties in regard to the law cluster around
three words in the statute. These words
form the basis of three questions What
is commerce." what is restraint" OF
trade or commerce? and what is 1t to
''monopolize?"
Around what Is commerce." the priu-
cpal fight In the tobacco case prob
ably liz TO be found. The commerce which
the government claims is being restrained
and monopoized Is not commerce. accord
ing 10 the tobacco attorneys.
Cite Knight Case.
1t is nothing more than the manu-
facturc OF an article which later enters
Into commerce The bulwark behind
It's fight along this line is the famous
Knight decision, made even more famous
by the reference to IL by former President
Roosevelt last fall In criticising the de-
cisions OF the supreme court.
In that case the court declined 10 sup
press an alleged monopoly In manufacture
OF sugar on the ground that II had au-
thority to proceed only by way of pre-
venting monopoles In commerce. The
tobacco corporations claim that they are
concerned only incidentally in commerce.
Again the dispute as TO what is In
cluded In the word commerce" as re-
ferred to In the Sherman antitrust law.
arises In connection with the character
OF a holding company. Both the Standard
OIL and the tobacco organizations contend
that the power granted by the constitu-
ton 10 regulate interstate commerce is
not 80 extensive as 10 include regulation
of the acquisition and ownership OF a
holding company of stock in other corpo-
ra tons The government argues that
whenever n holding company necessarily
STILES or directly and substantially re-
siricts free competition in commerce the
United States has power TO protect such
commerce.
In the contest regarding the answer TO
trade or commerce?" the first dispute is
over the Interpretation OF restraint of
trade as equivalent to the absence Of
free competition" The soyerTnme9t ad-
petition means restraint on trade and
consequently higher prices. The corpor-
atlons urge that combination OF pro-
ducers may mean reduction or expenses
and consequently lower prices.
The government further contends that
the Sherman antitrust law refers only
terial. One judge In passing on the to-
bacco case in the circuit court held that
the law referred TO eyerv restraint with
out regard 10 dlrectneSs or matcriality.
Deny They Restrain Trade.
II is said that this doctrine would stifc
legitimate business. The defendant or
ganizations do not press this argument
so much. because they claim in their
NJ hl nd mar ri al
straint OF commerce exists.
This claim is based upon the argument
that they are engaged principally not
| roads In the Northern Securities case,
but In the manufacture Of goods. which
may so Into Interstate commerce later
The third division OF the contest is
over the Interpretation OF the word mo
nopoiZe"
The Standard oil is particularly con-
cernod with this phase Of the contro-
versy, because the lower court found
that II was attempting 10 monopolize.
Attorneys for tho company advance the
legally acquire the trade OF the world
In an article provided 1T did nothing to
prevent others from competing with IT,.
They declare tho Standard Oil has done
nothing 10 prevent others from compct
ing.
Success has come to It. so they claim
abundant capital and steady reinvcstment
OF early profits" The government has
piled up volumc on volume to support
It's contention that success was achieved
by unfair competition.
The corporation tax cases, eighteen in
all. involve entirely different arguments
The corporation tax provisions OF the
Payne Aldrich iarir act provide for "a
special excise tax with respect TO the car
rylng on or doing business" by corpora
tions. equivalent to I per cent upon the
entire net income over and above $4,000"
Each OF the cases was originated IN
various, circuit courts by persons imam
cially Interested in the tax not being
paid These persons asked the courts
| TO entoin the payment OF the tax by re-
spective 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 il attacks tho sovereignty
OF the states by taxing state franchises:
that II invades the right to due process
OF law by leYying a tax on classes fixed
arbitrarily: and that II is a direct tax
not apportioned among the states, as
required by tho constitution.