Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1911-05-24
OIL TRUST BEATEN
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
ORDERS DISSOLUTION or
STANDARD COMPANY.
ENDS FIVE YEAR STRUGGLE
Decree of Lower Body Is Affirmed
With Slight Modifications-Cor
poration Declared Guilty of
Violating Sherman Law.

ITS case in the Supreme court of the
United States against the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey, it being
held that it is conspiracy and monop-
oily in restraint of trade The decree
of the lower court was affirmed, being
modified in particulars which Chief
Justice White said were extremely
slight.
Justice Harlan Dissents.
Justice Harlan announced a dis
senting opinion.
By the reorganization of the Stand
ard Oil of New Jersey the chief JUS
tice said that there was prima facie
evidence that there was an endeavor
to control and monopolize; that fur
Their investigation made this con-
elusive presumption of an intent to
restrain trade. He said only the ques-
ton of remedy remained for consid-
GRAFTON.
Business Need Not Cease.
The decree of the lower court was
modified so that there need not be
IAN absolute cessation of interstate
commerce in petroleum and It's prod.
ucts by such vast agencies as are en-
braced in the combination, a result
which might arise from that portion
of the decree which enjoined carrying
on of interstate commerce not only
by the New Jersey corporation, but
by all of the subsidiary companies
until the dissolution of the combina-
ton by the transfer of the stocks in
accordance with the decree"
The court also extended the time
from one to six months in which the
dissolution must take place.
Probably the most important prop
osition of law laid down in the opinion
was that the words in the statute,
every restraint of trade" are not to
be literally construed, but are to be
construed in the light of reason.
On this point the court held that
the position of the government that
the Supreme court had decided that
any qualification of this phrase was
precluded by previous decisions of the
Supreme court was erroneous
Justice Whites View.
Speaking of this error of the gov
eminent Chief Justice White in his
opinion said:
This is true because as the acts
which may come under the classes
stated in the first section and the re-
straint of trade to which that section
| applies are not specifically enumerated
| or defined, it is obvious that judg-
in no
into play to determine whether a par.
ticular case is embraced within the
| statutory classes, and whether If the
/ act is within such classes it's nature
or effect causes it to be a restraint
| of trade within the fntendment of the
act"
Case Tests Antitrust Law.
| The suit which called forth the
| Standard Oil decision was begun in
! 1906 in the United States circuit
! court for the eastern district of Mis-
souri,. 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 beginning the business
| and legal worlds recognized that the
suit put the Sherman antitrust law
| to the most severe test to which it
had been subjected. The law had
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 unsnimity in
regard to it's 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"
The second section reads:
Every person (Which subsequent
ly 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.
tons, shall be deemed guilty Of a mis-
| demeanor"