Arizona republican., 1911-05-16

court found this justification in the common law Of the forefathers and in the general law of the country at the time the sherman antitrust law was passed.
 In short. the court held that the technical words of the statute were to be given the meaning which those words had in the common law, and in the law of the country at the time of the enactment
 This meaning of the words. accord ing to the court. called for the exercise of reason in determining what re- straints of trade were prohibited.
 The suit which called forth todays ! decision was instituted in 1906 in the . United States circuit court for the Eastern district of Missouri. IL was ! brought in the name of the United States. The immediate object was to l 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 the most severe test to which it had been Subjected. The law
 
 i 1890 and had been the basis of some ! eighteen suits finally passed upon by | the supreme court or the United ! States. That the law was cOnstitu- tional 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 its interpretation With that : situation confronting the government { and the defendants. the suit was be- gun with the general belief that the entire business world would feel the effect or the outcome of the gigantic struggle.
 The government claimed that two sections Of the Sherman antitrust law had been violated. The first sec tion 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. ar with foreign nations, is hereby de clared to be illegal"
 The second section reads:
 Every persons (which subsequently, was explained in the statute to in clude corporations) who shall monOp- Olize. 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 tions. shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor"
 The Standard Oil company of New Jersey. some seventy subsidiary cor Tg.r, T..la, n Coll liam Rockefeller. Henry NJ. F'lagler Henry Fl Rogers, John ID. Archbold. Oliver II. Payne and Charles x. 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 government was this: It claimed that about 1870 the Rockefellers and Flag Ter conceived the idea Of controlling the petroleum trade of the country, and a little later entered into a con spiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne and Pratt to gain a control of the oil business. To carry out this all legged 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 pro- ceeding against the Standard Oil comrany of ohio. reorganized the Standard Oil company of New Jersey to take over their in terests and to secure monopoly. Evidence of rebating. of price cutting. and of the organization Of secret concerns to pose as independ- ents was elicited to show that the Standard was seeking by unfair means to restrain trade and to procure a monopoly.
 standard Oil" introduced evidence to show that there had never been such a conspiracy It sought to prove that the Ohio supreme court did not hold the trust agreement of 1882 void, but merely required 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 conner cial concerns, that price cutting and secret concerns were not the rule and were used as legitimate instruments of competition.
 The circuit court held that the re- organization of the Standard Oil com pany of New Jersey in 1899 was not only violation of the first section of the act. which referred to re- straints of trade: but also of the second section. which applied to monopolizing The Standard oil had argued that there could be no ad- ditional restraint as a result of the
 
 oil company of New Jersey was own