The Washington herald., 1911-01-07

States should hold the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey to be an un-
lawful combination in restraint of trade
because the States have SO held it under
their antitrust statutes is the argument
put forward by Attorney General Wick
ersham and Special Counsel kellogg and
Severance. in their supplemental brief
filed yesterday in support of their case
against the Standard.
Government counsel also maintain that
Congress meant to apply the act ITO
cover any form or device employed to
hold together corporations or naturally
competing business establishments SO as
TO eliminate competition" The decisions
of various State courts declaring the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey a
combination in violation of State statutes
were cited. The statutes under which
the Standard Oil Company was declared
an unlawful combination in restraint of
trade are declared to be 'in effect as
applied to intrastate commerce Substan-
TALLY the same as the Sherman act ap-
phed to interstate commerce.
The decisions of the States, in the view
OF the Attorney General and the other
government counsel, .evince a great pub
Lie policy of this nation, which is a ma
terfal consideration in this court" The
fact was adverted to that, under the
State statutes. the Standard and many
combination were excluded from those
States
Must Enforce Act,
The point is made that many of the
States are enforcing these statutes, and
unless the Federal government enforces
tne Sherman act We shall have the
anomalous condition of these great COM
binatons being held invalid as to intra-
state commerce and excluded from the
States. while as to interstate commerce
they may continue to do business under
the shield Of Federal authority"
In every case brought agoinst the
Standard Oil in any of the States under
antitrust statutes the combination has
been held to be invalid, says the govern
ment's counsel
Stress is laid upon the decision of the
Kansas State courts in the matter of the
State against the International Harvester
Company. 1t was found there that if a
decree expelled the defendant from the
State the farmers could not buy harvest
ing machines. Therefore it became neces-
sary to limit the decree so that it merely
annulS certain contracts
The foregoing case illustrates the ne
cessity for action by the Federal govern
ment." says the Attorney General. Here
is corporation held to be a trust and
combinat ton in violation of statutes SUBJ
stantially like the Federal antitrust act.
and yet the State is compelled to permit
violation of its laws because Of the power
of such a company to take from the farm
ers Of the State any opportunity to buy
except at prices fixed by the trust
The governments brief contends that
combinations effected by purchase are
equally within the inhibitions of the law.
This was in reply to the contention Of
the Standard Oil attorneys that the first
section of the Sherman law did not cover
combinations brought about through
purchase of competing concerns. The at
torneys for the Standard Oil COMPANY
contend IN their brief that purchases
and acquisitions of property are not con-
tracts, combina tons, or conspiracies in
restraint of trade, and that a person has
right to buy competing business, and
that the incidental restraint, which goes
with this purchase, cannot be prohibited
by Congress. The Attorney General and
his associates dismissed this contention
by the statement that it is the same kind
of argument that was urged in the
Northern Securities case. i'm which the
court held to the contrary The govern
ments counsel insist that the status of
the Standard Oil Company of New Jer-
sey presents exactly the same situation
as the Northern Securities case
Cannot Be Evaded.
The Attorney General and his associ-
ateS contend that the antitrust act cam
not be evaded in the way suggested by
the Standard attorneys, or it is of no
value whatever, for it would be an
easy matter to get the stockholders of all
the competing corporations in any branch
of industry in America to turn their
stock over to trustees for the purpose of
dividing 1t among them in order to make
thefn common owners, as a preliminary
step to a combination. In fact, the
transfer to corporation and receipt of
That corporations stock is in effect
nothing more than this
The governments brief takes exception
tc the statement of the counsel for the
standard OIL Company that the share
holders were not the same in 1879 1850.
and 1883, and shows that the shareholders
in the various corporations that placed
their stock in the trus<o of 1879 were thir.
ty-SeVen in number, of whom only five
were stockholders of the original stand
ard OIL of Ohio. In 1852 the number had
increased to forty-two. but in 1892 it had
dropped to seventeen.
The brief of the government recites
the difficulties experienced in trying to
get the lists of shareholders of the
Standard Oil Company. The refusal of
Rockefeller and Archbold to produce the !
books is recited, and the statement is |
made, referring to the testimony OF M.
that when he said che had
not been the custodian Of the papers for
more than thirty years. it was a mere
evasion |
The brief of the Attorney General |
charges that lit is perfectly evident |
from this record that every possible !,
means to cover up the transaction and |
the list of stockholders during this liuui- !
dation period was resorted to by the de- |
PENDANTS and their counsel" The brief
also says:
THE fact is that during these wears
the presiding genius who successfully or. 1
sanized these illegal trusts for the Dur.
pose of evading the law was Mr., John
D. Rockefeller, and that the only per-
SONS who had been with him and acting
with him during all these years were
John D. Archbold, Henry H. Rogers.
william Rockefeller, Oliver H. Paine.
Henry NJ. Flagler, and c. NJ. P.att
These men never owned q majority Of
he stock in any Of the trusts or com
oinations."
Held ON Bonds Of @6OO
Arraigned in Police Court on a charee
& grand larceny Charles RaiY. vbo v,,I