Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-05-16

The government today won its case in
the supreme court of the United
States against the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey, in that it is
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 very slight indeed.
Justice Harlan announced a dis
sen.lng opinion.
White Read Opinion.
Chief Justice White began reading
the Standard Oil opinion at 4 o'clock.
The entire opinion makes %, 900 words
and was not read in full.
He said the only point on which
the two sides were in accord was that
the first and the second sections of
the Sherman law controlled the case.
Taking up the two sections the
court first discussed the law, promis.
ing later to deal with the problems
raised by the Sherman antitrust law.
WASHINGTON, b. c. May, 15-The
suit which called forth today's decis'
ion was instituted in 1906 in the Unit.
ed States circuit court for the Eastern
district of Missouri. 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 very beginning, the bust.
ness and the legal words recognized
that the suit put the Sherman anti
trust law to the most severe test to
which it had been subjected. The law
had been on the statute books since
1890 and had been the basis of some
eighteen suits, finally passed upon by
the supreme court of the United.
States. That the law was constitu-
tional was accepted as settled by these
decisions, but simple as the words of
the statute seemed, there was an alb
sence of unanimity in regard to it's irl
With that situation con-
fronting the government and the de-
the suit was BEGUN with the
general belief that the entire business
world would feel the effect of the out
come of the gigantic struggle.
The government claimed that the
two sections of the Sherman antitrust
law had been violated. The first Sec
ton reads as follows:
Every contract. combination in the
form of trust or otherwise or conspir'
acy, in restraint of trade or CONNER
&c among the several states. or with
foreign nations, is hereby declared TO
be illegal"
The section section reads as fol.
lows:
Every person (Which subsequently
was explained in the statute to include
who shall monopolize,
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 nations, shall
be deemed guilty of misdemeanor."
The Standard Oil company of New
Jersey, some seventy subsidiary cor
John D. Rockefeller, Will
lam Rockefeller, Oliver H. Payne and
Charles NJ. Pratt, all defendants in the
suit. denied the charges.
Months were spent in gathering the
evidence The general line of attack
Is shown by evidence presented by
he government was this: It claimed
hat about 1870 the Rockefellers and
Tlaglers conceived the idea of con-
rolling the petroleum trade of the
country, and little later entered in
O conspiracy with Rogers, Arch
,old, Payne and Pratt to gain control
# the oil business. To carry out this
llleged conspiracy, it was claimed,
hey first pooled" their interests, then
tut them into the hands of trustees or
trusts" and finally when the trust of
1872 was declared "void" in decis-
on by the Ohio supreme court in
against the Standard Oil
company Of Ohio, reorganized the
standard Oil Company of New Jersey |
o take over their interests and to Sc
ure monopoly. Evidence of rebating |
4 price cutting, and of the organfza'
ion of secret concerns to pose as in
dependents was elected to show that
he Standard was seeking by unfair
1c0u6 u IcoIIdlu LIduC anu " PAOSuA0
STANDARD Oil" introduced evidence
0 show that there had never been
1t sought to prove that
he Ohio supreme court did not hold
be trust agreement of 1882 void. but
merely required the Standard Oil
company of Ohio to withdraw from
be trust" Evidence was produced
, show that rebating had been the
rider of the day among all commercial
oncerns, that price cutting and secret
oncerns we're not the rule and were
sed as legitimate instruments Of
The circuit court held that the re-
of the Standard Oil Com.
any of New Jersey in 1899 was not
My violation of the first section of
,e act. which referred to restraints Of
ade, but also of the second section,
hich applied to monopolizing. The
tandard Oil argued that there could
; no additional restraint as result
the reorganization because the
tandard Oil Company of New Jersey
10 owned by a common body of
vners in exactly the same proportion
at all the subsidiary companies tax
/ over by this new organization had
zen held by these same common own.