The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-16

should be put into effect from one month to six months
 The other modification was more im- portant and had to do with the sixth section of the decree which forbade the formation by the subsidiary corporations or their stockholders of like combina- tions.
 I've construe the sixth paragraph of the decree,'' said the chief justice, not as depriving the stockholders of like com binations.
 I've construe the sixth paragraph of the decree" said the chief justice, mot as depriving the stockholders or corpora tions of the right to live under the law of the land. but as compelling obedience to that law
 He said it did not follow that because an illegal restraint of trade or an at tempt to monopolize or a monopolization resulting from the combination of the corporations in the New Jersey corpora ton. that like restraint or attempt to monopolize or monopolzation would nec- esarily arise from agreements between one >or more of the subsidiary corpora tions after the transfer of the stock by the New Jersey corporation.
 For Illustration" said he, take the pipe lines. By the effect of the trans fer of the stock the pipe lines would come under the control of various cor porations instead of being subjected to a uniform control. If various corpora tions owning the lines determined in the public interests to so combine as to make a continuous line, such agreement or combination would not be repugnant to the act and yet it might be restrained by the decree. As another example take the Union Tank Line company, one of the subsidiary corporations, the owner practically of all the tank cars in use by the combination. If no possibility ex- isted of agreements for the distribution of these cars among the subsidiary cor porations, the. most serious det~iment to the public interest might result"
 Instituted in 1906
 The suit which called forth today's de. cision was instituted in 1906 in the United States circuit court for the eastern dis trict of Missouri. It was brought in the name of the United States. The imme- diate object was to dissolve the Standard oil Company of New Jersey.
 From the very beginning. the business and the legal worlds recognized that the suit put the Sherman antitrust law 10 the most severe test to which 1t had been subjected The law had been on the statute book since 1890, and had been the basis of some IS suits finally passed upon by the supreme court of the United States That the law was constitutional was accepted as settled by these de- cisions but simply as the words of the statute seemed, there was an absence of unanimity in regard to it's intefpreation. With that situation confronting the gov orr nd ha 6ofendnptc S1tit -xpa . begun with the general belief that the entire business world would feel the ef- feet of the outcome of the gigantic strug- gle.
 Government Claims
 The government claimed that two sec tions 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 conspira- cy 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 persons (which subsequently, was explained in the statute to include oorporations) who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or con spire with any other person or persons. to monopolize,l any part of trade or com merce among the several states. or with foreign nations. shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
 The Standard oil Company of New Jer- sey, some % subsidiary corporations, John D. Rockefeller. William Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler. Henry H. Rogers, John D. Archibald, Oliver H. Payne and Charles M. Pratt, all defendants in the suit, denied the charges.
 Months were spent in gathering evi- dence The general line. of attack as shown by evidence presented by the gov ernment was this It claimed that about 1870 the Rockefelers and Flasler con ceived the Idea of controlling the petro- leum trade of the country and little later entered into a conspiracy with Rogers. Archibald, 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 o, trusts" and finally when the trust oe 1882 was declared void" in decision bv the Ohio supreme court in proceed ing against the Standard oil Company Of Ohio, reorganized the Standard oil Com many of New Jersey to take over their interests and to secure monopoly. Evj- dence of relating. of price cutting. and Of the organization of secret concerns to pose as independents was elicited to show that the Stanard was seeking by unfair means to restrain trade and to procure a monopoly.
 Denies Conspiracy
 standard Oil'' introduced evidence 10 show that there had never been such q conspiracy. It sought to prove that the Ohio supreme court did not hold the trust agreement of 1882 void, but merely re- quired 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 secret concerns were not the rule and were used as egitima'e instruments of competition.
 The circuit court held that the reorgah ization of the Standard oil Company or New Jersey in 1899 was not only viola ton of the first section of the act. wnich referred to restraints of trade, but also of the second section, which applied 10 rronopolizing. The Standard OH nad ar gued that there could be no additional re- straint as a result of the reorganization. because the Standard Oil Company Of New Jersey was owned by common body Of owners ir exactly the same pro- portion that ali the subsidiary companies t,fe roW orca y1fZa tiOn had