The Washington herald., 1911-05-16
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
NOT HALTED BY COURT

much OF the governments bill as related
tc acts committed before the passage Of
the antitrust law.
Court Has Difficulties.
At the outset of the consideration Of
the merits Of the controversy, the Chief
Justice pointed out the difficulties under
which the court labc-ed.
Both as to the law and as to the facts,
the opposing contentious pressed in the
argument are numerous" he said. land
in all their aspects are so irreconcilable
that it is difficult to reduce them to some
fundamental generalizations, which by
being disposed Of would decide them all.
For instance, as to the law. While both
sides agree that the determination of
the controversy rests upon the correct
construction and application Of the first
and second sections Of the antitrust act
yet the views as to the meaning of the
act are as wide apart as the poles,
since there is no real point of agree
ment on any view Of the act. And this
also is the case as to the scope and ef-
feet of authorities relied upon, even al
though in some instances one and the
same authority is asserted to be con-
trolling.
% dlSO Is IL dS 10 tHe idCtS 1Huo,
On the one hand. with relentless pertinac-
ity and minuteness Of analysis. it is in
sisted that the facts established that the
assailed combination took its birth in a
purpose to unlawfully acquire wealth by
depressing the public and destroying the
just rights of others, and that it's entire
career exemplifies an inexorable carrying
out of such wrongful intents, since 1t is
asserted the pathway Of the combination
from the beginning to the time Of the
filing of the bill is marked with con-
slant proofs of wrong inflicted upon the
public, and is strewn with the wrecks re-
gard to law. the individual rights Of
others.
Trust Il Dangerous.
Indeed. So conclusive, it is urged, is
the proof on these subjects, that 1t is
asserted that the existence OF the prin-
cipal corporate defendant-the Standard
Oil Company Of New Jersey-with the
vast accumulation of property which 1t
owns or controls. because of its infinite
potency for harm and the dangerous ex-
ample which its continued existence af-
fords. is an open and enduring menace
to all freedom of trade and is by-word
and reproach to modern economic meth
DDS
'On the other hand. in a powerful an
alysiS of the facts. II is insisted that
they demonstrate that the origin and de-
velopment of the vast business which
the defendants control was but the re-
suit of lawful competitive methods. guiu-
ed by economic genius of the highest Or
der. sustained by courage, by a keen in
sight into commercial situations, result
ing in the acquisition of great wealth,
but at the same time serving to stimu-
late and increase production, to widely
extend the distribution of the products
Of petroleum at a cost largely below that
which would have otherwise prevailed.
thus proving to be at one and the same
time a benefaction to the general public.
as we'll as of enormous advantage to in
dividuals.
1T is not denied that in the enormous
volume of proof contained in the record
In the period Of almost a lifetime to
which that proof is addressed there may
be found acts of wrongdoing, but the iir-
sistence is that they were rather the ex-
ception than the rule. and in most cases
were, either the result of too great
zeal, in the keen rivalries of
business, or of the methods and habits
Of dealing. which, even If wrong. were
practiced at the time. And IL
discover and state the truth concerning
these contentious both arguments call for
the analysis and weighing. az We have
said at the outset, of a jungle of con-
iicting testimony covering a period Of
forty years, a duty difficult to rightly
perform and, even IL satisfactorily ac-
almost impossible to state
with any reasonable regard to brevity.
Antitrust Act Applies.
Duly appreciating the situation just
stated. it is certain that only one point
If concord between the parties is discern
BILE, which is that the controversy in
every aspect is controlled by a correct
of the meaning of the first and
second sections Of the antitrust act
The Chief Justice reviewed the history
II the Sherman antitrust act. He said
hat the debates showed that there was
loubt as to whether there was a COM
non law of the United States which gov
,rned the subject in the absence Of legis-
alton. but that the main cause which
ed to the enactment was the thought
hat it was required by the economic con-
lition of the times, "the vast accun1u-
alton of wealth in the hands of corpora
ions and individuals. the enormous de-
relopment Of corporate organization, the
AGILITY for combination which such or
afforded, the fact that the
AGILITY was being used, and that COM
'inations known as trusts were being
multiplied. and the widespread impress
lion that their power had been and
would be exerted to oppress individuals
md injure the public generally
Statute Names Trusts.
The court holds that the first section
# the statute deals with restraint of
rade, as therein contemplated, and that
he second section is made to cover the
ttempt to monopolize, and monopoliza-
ion.''
Chief Justice White declared that II
I'D not require an elaborate and learned
nalysis Of the English law to ascer-
ain the evolution of the legal restraints
pom monopolies and attempts to restrain |
rade.
Even in England originally all such con-
racts were considered to be illegal, be- |
ause ii was deemed they were Injurious
0 the public as well as to the individuals |
rho made them. Referring to the con-
itions in England, the court said:
THE evils which led to the public out
ry against monopolies and to the final |
enial Of the power to make them may
e thus summarily stated:
q The power which the monopoly |
ave to the one who enjoyed It to fix the |
rice and thereby injure the public
- The power which is engendered of !
nabling limitation on production.
g. The danger OF deterioration In
uality Of the monopolized article which |
was deemed was the Inevitable result
Vanderlip Foretold II