Weekly journal-miner., 1911-05-17

Tn the United States Circuit Court
 for the Eastern District of Missouri.
 It was brought in the name of the
 United States. The immediate ob-
 ieet was to dissolve the Standard
 Oil Company of New Jersey.
 From the very beginning the busi-
 ness and the legal worlds recognized
 that the suit put the Sherman anti
 trust law to tine most severe test to
 which it had been subjected. The
 law had been on the statute book
 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 constitutional was accepted as settled by these decisions, but simple as the
 words of the statute seemed, there was an absence of unanimity in re-
 gard to it's interpretation. With that situation confronting the govern ment and the defendants the suit was begun the general belief that the entire business world would feel the effect of the outcome of the gi- gantie struggle.
 The government claimed 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 conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.'
 The second section reads:-
 "Every person (which subse- quently was explained in the statute to include eorporations) who shall mOnOpolize or attempt to monOpolize or combine or conspire with any oth- CT person or persons, to monOpOlize, any part of trade or commerce among tine several states. or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of misdeameanor.
 The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, some seventy subsidiary cor pOratiOns. John D. Rockefeller, Will jam Rockefeller, Henry NJ. Flagler- Henry H. Rogers, John D. Archbold Oliver H. Payne and Charles NJ. Pratt, all defendants in the suit. denied the charges.
 Months were spent in gathering evidence. The general line of attack as shown by evidence presented by tine government was this: It claim ed that about 1870 the Roekefellers and Flagler conceived the idea of controlling the petroleum trade of the country, and a little later enter ed into a conspiracy with Rogers, Payne and Pratt to gain l a 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 Company of New Jersey | to take over their interests and to | secure monopoly. Evidence of batting, of price cutting, and of the of secret concerns to pose as independents was elicited to show that the Standard was seeking unfair means to restrain trade and .O procure a monopoly.
 Standard Oil" introduced evi- fence to show that there had never been such a conspiracy. It sought To prove that the Ohio Supreme Court did not hold the trust agree nent of 1882 void, but merely re- luired the Standard Oil Company ,f Ohio to withdraw from the trust Evidence was produced to show that -ebating had been the order of the lay among all commercial concerns, hat price cutting and secret con- ,erns were not the rule and were lsed as legitimate instruments of 
 The Circuit Court held that the of the Standard Oil 'Ompany of New Jersey in 1899 was lot only violation of the first ee- ion of the act, which referred to of trade, but also of the eeond which applied to InonOpoliz- [ ng The Standard Oil had argued hat there could be no additional as result of the reorgan- zation because the Standard Oil , Company of New Jersey was owned , ! |,