The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-01-06
Supreme Court Again Takes
UpF famous Antitrust Cases


proceed only by way OF preventing
,monopolies in commerce. The tobacco
corporations claim that thehy are con-
cerned only incidentally in commerce.
Again the dispute as to what is in
cluded in the word commerce" as re-
,ferred to in the Sherman antitrust
law, arises in connection with the char
acter of holding company. Both the
STANDARD Oil and the tobacco organiza-
tions contend that the power granted
lby the constitution to regulate inter
state commerce is not so extensive as
to include regulation of the acquisi-
tion and ownership of a holding COM
pany of stock in other corporations.
The government argues that when
lever a holding company necessarily
stifles or directly and substantially re-
stricts free competition in commerce,
the United States has power to pro-
Itect such commerce.
In the contest regarding the answer
to the question of What is restraint
of trade or commerce?" the first dis
pute is over the Interpretation of re
straint of trade" as equivalent to the
absence of free competition" The
government advances the theory that
reduction of competition means a re-
straint on trade and consequently
higher prices The corporations urge
that a combination of producers may
mean reduction of expenses and con-
sequently lower prices
The government further contends
that the Sherman antitrust law refers
only to such restraints as are direct
and material. One judge in passing
on the tobacco case in the circuit court
held that the law referred to every
restraint without regard to directness
or materiality. 1t is said that this
doctrine would stifle legitimate busi-
ness. The defendant organizations do
not press this argument so much, be-
cause they claim in their cases that
no direct and material restrainst of
commerce exists. This claim is based
upon the argument that they are en-
gagged principally, not in interstate
commerce as were the railroads in the
Northern Securities case, but in the
manufacture of goods, which may go
into Interstate commerce later.
The third division of the contest is
over the Interpretation of the word
'monopolize." The Standard Oil is
particularly concerned with this phase
of the controversy, because the lower
court found that it was attempting to
|monopolize. Attorneys for the COM
pany advance the argument that under
the law it could legally acquire the
trade of the world in an article pro
vided it did nothing to prevent others
from competing with it. They declare
the Standard Oil has done nothing to
prevent others from competing. Sue
cess has come to it, so they claim, be-
cause of "untiring energy infinite skill,
abundant capital and steady reinvest-
ment of early profits The govern
ment has piled up volume on volume
to support its contention that success.
was achieved by unfair competition.
The corporation tax cases, eighteen
In all, involve entirely different argu-
ments. The corporation tax provisions
of the Payne-Aldrich tariff act provide
for "a special excise tax with respect
to the carrying on or doing business"
by corporations, equivalent to one per
centum upon the entire net income
over and above $4,000"
Each of the cases was originated in
various circuit courts by persons fin
ancially interested in the tax not be-
ing paid. These persons asked the
courts to enjoin the payment of the
tax by respective corporations because
the tax was unconstitutional. The val
idity of the tax was upheld in each
case
The law is opposed principally on the
grounds that it attacks the sovereignty
of the states by taxing state fran
chises; that it invades theh right to
due process of law levying tax on
classes fixed arbitrarily; and that it
is a direct tax not apportioned among
the states, as required by the consti-
tuition.
ruIr 1IlII nnFu llIFnF IrPT