New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-31


Washington, May 81
r,,,, rrt-cT DECISiONS-So clearly
and upcouiyocally has the Supreme Cour.
ordered the dissolution or dlsinteerd'""
both the standard oil ana inc io"".0Y
trusts that those who have been s'uuH ne
the decisions arc convinced that no i's'"o'
can be devised whereby they can oe w"
,oqether again. once the mandate OF '"o
court is obevcd-that IS. put together "i'n-
ont violating the decree OF the court -"
tho csse ~ tho Tobacco Trust the supreme
cor, found the kno, II was called upon
% unrov.l 90 tangled that il had not lime
- do I, I, aprreciated that there were
many holders 81 the securltes VI INC
various clements which by one deN'Ce VI
another had been Utilized TO form tne
monopoly who are wholly innocent OF "io"S
doing. and wishing 10 impose no uh"e'e
sarv hardship on them. the case was IT,
;usnded 70 III. lower court. not that ne"
oreantza,ion might he there effected. nut
that tho dissolution might be accomplished
with tho least hardship to those who were
in no way 10 blame for the wrongful acts
~ those who had deliberately sought 10
violate the shirt Of the Sherman act. NOT
is II believed that there is, on the par' vi
the defendants. any right or appeal from
the decree Of the Circuit Court Inc sus-
eestion is made that, should the govern
rnent believe the decree was not IN accoro-
snce with the mandate or the supreme
Court fl could appeal 10 the higher tribunal
hu, Il ,s contended that the right of appeal
IN This instance lies only with the govern
uent. For these reasons The government
regards the two decisions as remarhaD'e
triumph. and as. moreover. giving 10 lne
antitrust law meaning and Nitah'9
uhich II has not enjoyed in the past
y1vDrCATES RECEIVERSfIIP.-Th
u,ho recall the shout of ridicule Wnlch "eii'
,,n iron, various sources when the Attorney
General in his argument 10 the court SUB
gested \ receivership for the American TO
hecco Company as The only pracucaoie
means of untanglng the snarl OF corpora
t,ons stockholdings. ma jority interests etc''
~, r,hich the trust had been constructed
me, roaii,e that the decision OF the Su-
zane Court constitutes a notable vindlca-
tion Of that proposition 1t is true. or course
the supreme Court orders the Circuit court
70 attempt TO find some method Wherepy
the dissolution or disintegrston OF the 'rus'
and the destruction Of the monopoly which
If Is found 20 constitute may he achieVeu :
In, the fact that the order further provinces
that Il such means shall NOT nave oeeh
| found within the stipulated SIX months VI
~ most eight months. either the conpiha-
ZION shall he enjoined from doins buslne :
or shall be placed in he hands Of q recelF-
., constitutes a conclusive Endorsement or
that method Of dispoSing OF the affairs or a
combination which has been constructed IN
violation Of the law. II Is, moreoF Ella rea-
sonablo assumption that. actuated by inc
sanoe motive that led the Supreme Court 10
seek 10 protect innocent investors, the CIR
init court would choose a recelvership AZ
I preferable 10 enioinng the trust from en-
/ "a cling in interstate or foreign commerce.
CRIMINAL PROSECTTIONS- The FIST
/ question which naturally arises following
/ the scathing denunciation which the hlghes'
! judicial tribunal has visited upon the meth
DDS hy which the Tobacco Trust was
created is whether Yesterdays decision VIII
! be followed 10y criminal prosecutions. 10
/ that question il is safe assertion 10 say
/ tho ATTORNEY Genera himself could not
give anv conclusive answer AZ this time. III
1 .lov If the solicitude which the Supreme
/ Court showed for The innocent investor
Z, the Securities OF tho Tobacco Trdst Ii is
nrohable that the government will not seek
/ 10 hamper those on whom devolves the re-
sponsioility Of cooperating with the CIR
! emit Court to that end Ivy criminal prosecu'
! ton during the period allowed for the DIS
;ntesration Of the trust. More than that
Hni lone /
handed down afford much material fo'
study and involve n grave problem VIII
regard 10 criminal prosecutions. notab% II
4 the second instance. it - noteworthy ina
/ criminal prosecutions undertaken III u'
past under the sherman law have not NC
/ with success. \ striking instance OF TINS D.
/ furnished bv the feet that in only one case
has tie imprisonment penalty been I'M
pcsed. and Lat in the prosecution OF one 81
tho component elements o. tho Tobacco
. Trust In the case OF McAndreWs a
+ For5cr. constituting the Lcoricc Ttust
/ tho Jury refused 10 convict the individual
defendants and thus render them subject
10 imprisonment, although it found the cor
poration guilty OF Violation Of the anti
trust law 70 considerable extent the
/ attitude 81 iuries in the past * believed 1,
/ Rave been due to the NaGue Understanding
! Or what the lev prohi 1ted. and the lorc'
/ of the appeal made I'm behalf Of the de-
( PENDANTS, thai they had don" only wha'
B ever, one Csc i'm business did. and were
not aware they were violating the law. O'
/ course. TIM. same appeal may he MADE II
1 ,he cases Of al those VINO have hitherto
/ violated the provisions OF the law. but il IS
/ tire opinion OF the prorecutine officers OF
/ the government that 80 clear are the DC
| cisons handed down in these two great
cases similar difficulty viii not be OK
/ pcrienced in the prosecution Of acis com
! mitted subsequent thereto.
THE REL1ET.-Tho~e who are opposed
! to- the antitrust law. who hoid il TO be M
/ Infringement Of ina yiaual liberty and q
6@gSISSsN@Ss ,sa@sa