The Bryan eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1880-1913, 1911-05-18

strain trade and TO procure a mo-
nopoly.
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 CONNER
cial concerns, that price cutting and
secret concerns were not the rule and
were used as legitimate instruments
OF competition
The circuit court held that the re-
organization of the Standard Oil Com
pany 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 sec
ton, which applied to monopolizing
The Standard Oil had argued that
there could be no additional restraint
as a result of the reorganization be-
cause the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey was owned by a common
body of owners in exactly the same
proportion that all the subsidiary com
panies taken over by this new organi-
zation had been held by these same
common owners for years past, The
court held otherwise and said that the
com bination in a single corporation
or person. by an exchange of stock,
of the power of many stockholders
holding the same proportions respect
lively of the majority of the stock of
each of several corporations engaged
in commerce in the same articles
among the states, or with foreign ma
tons, to restrict competition therein,
rendered the power thus vested in the
corporation or person greater, more
easily exercised more durable and
more effective than that previously
held by the stockholders. In these
effects the court found a restraint on
commerce.
The court then proceeded to evolve
a plan to remedy the situation. 1t en-
tered a decree enjoining the Standard
Oil Company of New Jersey from eX-
ercising any control, by reason of its
stock ownership, over the subsidiary
companies Furthermore, it enjoined
these subsidiary companies from pay
ing any dividends to the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey. 1t put a pro-
vision in the decree to enjOin any
possible evasion of the decree by the
organization of a similar combination
or of the conveyance of the property
to one of the defendants. Unless the
defendants should sever the relations
and cease the combination within
thirty days, they were to be enjoined
from engaging in interstate commerce
until they did cease the combination.
From the circuit court the case was
brought to the supreme court of the
United States. The record laid before
the higher tribunal probably was the
largest ever prepared in an American
case. The petition, pleadings, testi-
mony opinions and decree constituted
twenty-five large volumes, or more
than five hundred pages each.
The case was first argued before
the supreme court in March, 1910, but
it was restored to the docket for re-
argument. The case was heard the
second time in January, 1911, the lat
ter time before full bench. Noted
attorneys appeared on either side. For
the government Attorney General
Wickersham and Frank S. Kellogg, |
special assistant to the attorney gen
eral, addressed the court. For the
Standard Oil there appeared John G.
Johnson of Philadelphia; John G. Mil
burn, of New York; and D. T. Wat
son, of Pittsburg.
In his address to the court Mr.. Kel- /
logg, who took all the testimony in |
the case on behalf Of the government, !
said that the Standard Oil organiza- |
ton was not a natural growth, but |
was born and reared in fraud and op- |
preston, and hangs over the COM
merce of this country today like
threatening cloud"
The Standard Oil Company of New |
Jersey, he told the court, controlled |
from IS to 81 per cent of the oil bust
ness of the country, with a financial |
power beyond that possessed by any |
other combination ever known. The
combination, he added, was made ef /
fective and powerful by reason of /
preferential rates and rebates in |
transportation, the greatest ever
known to have been made, and by un- |
fair and brutal methods of competi- |
ton, which in and of themselves be-
tween merchants and corner-grocery- |
men would not be dangerous, but in |
the hands Of a combination of this !
IL