The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1911-05-19

1 Government, was this: 1t claimed that
about 1870 the RockefelIers and Flag
ler conceived the iIea of controlling
the petroleum trade OF the country,
and a little later entered into con-
spiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne
and Pratt to gain control OF the oil
business. To carry out this alleged
conspiracy, it was claimed they first
pooled their interests, then put them
into the hands Of trustees, or trusts, =
and finally when the trust OF 1882 was
declared void in a decision by the
Ohio Supreme Court in a proceeding
against the Standard Oil Company of
Ohio, reorganized the Standard Oil Conn
pany Of New Jersey to take over their
interests and to secure monopoly. Evil
dence Of rebating, of price cutting and
Of the organization Of secret concerns
to pose as independents was elected to
show that the Standard was seeking by
unfair means to restrain trade and to
procure monopoly.
Standard Oil introduced evidence to
show that there had never been such a
conspiracy. 1t sought to prove that the
Ohio Supreme 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; that
price-cutting and recret concessions were
the rule, and were used as legitimate
instruments of competition.
The Circuit Court held that the reor-
ganization OF the Standard Oil Company
Of New Jersey in 1899 was not only
violation Of the first section OF the act,
which referred to restraints of trade,
but also Of the second section, which
applied to monopolizing. The Standard
Oil had argued that there could be no
additional restraint as 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 that all the sub
sidiary companies taken over Ly this
same common owners for years past.
The court held otherwise, and said that
the combination in a single corporation
or person, by an exchange Of stocks of
the power of many stockholders hold
ing the same proportions respectively |
OF the majority Of the stock of each Of
several corporations engaged in COM
merce in the same article among the
States, or with foreign nations, to re-
strict competition therein, rendered the
vested in the corporation or
person greater, more easily exercised,
more durable and more effective than
that previously held by the stockhold-
ers. In these effects, the court found
a restraint on commerce.
The court then proceeded to evolve
plan to remedy the situation. 1t entered
a decree, enioining the Standard Oil
Company Of New Jersey from exercis-
ing any control, by reason Of its stock
ownership, over the subsidiary com
panies. Furthermore, it enjoined these
companies from paying any
to the Standard Oil Company
1f New Jersey. It put provision in
"a the decree to enioin any possible
evasion of the decree by the organiza-
ion Of similar combination or the
Of the property to one of
he defendants. Unless the defendants
hould sever the relations and cease the
within thirty days they
we're to be enjoined from engaging in
interstate commerce until they did cease
he combination.
From the Circuit Court the case was
,rought to the Supreme Court Of the
United States. The record laid before
he higher tribunal probably was the
argest ever prepared in an American
ase. The petition, pleadings, testi-
aony, opinions and DEGREES constituted
large volumes Of more than
We hundred pages each.
The case was first argued before the
upreme Court in March, 1910, but it
ias restored to the docket for reargu- II
rent The case was beard the second
me in January, 1911. the latter time
efore full bench Noted attorneys =
ppeared on either side For the Gov
rnment, Attorney General Wiclsersham
nd Frank s. Kellogg, special assistant
, ti,n A t&1r.,ax, Naro~oI nId~aco,J 4bn y