The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1911-05-18

| 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 unanimlty 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
| reads 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"
4 he SeCOIu section TPduS.
Every persons (Which subsequent
~ was explained in the statute to in
| clude corporations) who shall monop-
Ollie or attempt to monopolize or
combine or conspire 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 ID. Rockefeller, Will
liam Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler,
John D. Archbold, oliver H. Payne
and Charles NJ. Pratt, all defendants
in the suit, denied the charges.
Gather Evidence for Months.
Months were devoted to gathering
evidence. The general line of attack
as shown by evidence presented by
the government was this
1t is held that about 1870 the Rookie
fellers and Flagler conceived the plan
Of controlling the petroleum trade of
the country, and a little later entered
a conspiracy with Rogers, Archbold,
Payne and Pratt to gain control of the
oil business. T0 carry out this alleged
conspiracy, it was claimed, they first
pooled their interests then put them
into the hands of trustees or trusts
and when the trust of 1882 was de-
clared void in decision by the Ohio
supreme court in a proceeding against
the Standard Oil company of Ohio,
reorganized the Standard Oil company
of New Jersey to take over their in
terests and to assure monopoly.
Evidence of rebating, of price cutting
and Of the organization OF secret con-
Germs to pose as Independents was
elected to show that the Standard
was seeking by unfair means to re-
strain trade and to procure a monop-
oily.
Tried to Disprove Conspiracy.
The Standard Oil company intro
duced evidence to show that there
had never been such conspiracy. 1t
sought to prove that the Ohio SUI
preme court did not hold the trust
agreement of 1882 void but merely
required the Standard Oil company Of
Ohio to withdraw from the trust.
Evidence was produced TO show that
rebating had been the order of the
day among all commercial concerns
and that price cutting and secret con-
Germs were not the rule and were
used as legitimate instruments of com
petition.
1t was held by the circuit court that
the reorganization Of Standard Oil
company of New Jersey in 1899 was
a violation not only of the first section
of the act, which referred to re-
straints of trade, but of the second
section, which applied to the monop-
olizing. The Standard Oil company
had argued that there could be no ad-
dtonal restraint as a result of the
reorganization because the Standard
Oil company Of New Jersey was
owned by a common body of owners
in exactly the same proportion as all
the subsidiary companies taken over
by this new organization had been
held by these common owners for
years.
The court held otherwise and said
that the combination in single cor
poration {" person by the exchange of
stock of the power of many stockhold-
ers holding the same proportions re-
spectively of the majority of the
stock of each of the several corpora
tons engaged in commerce of the
same articles among the states. or
with foreign nations, to restrict com
petition therein, rendered the power
thus vested in the corporation or per
son greater, more easily exercised
more durable. and more effective than
that previously held by the stockhold-
ers In these effects the court found
restraint on commerce.
Wireless Decision Important.
The Supreme court also handed down
decision unfolding the judgment
of contempt in the case of christopher
G. Wilson, president Of the United
Wireless company, for refusal to pro
duce before a New York grand jury
books of the company wanted in a
fraud investigation.
by the decision the federal govern
ment won a farreaching legal con
troversy in that officials of corpora
tionS cannot refuse tn give IN BOSSES
sion of corporation books for examina
ton by grand juries, lest they them
selves be inCrimlnated thereby.