Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-05-18
FINDS 1T is CONSPIRACY
in RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Government Wins Tremendous Struggle to Put
Down Combination Which Is Claimed to
Menace Industrial and Economic De-
velopment of the Entire Country

to the various telephone and telegraph
Instruments throughout the capitol were
on hand, but the announcement OF the
decision was not begun until an hour after
the closing OF the stock markets.
TOBACCO DECISION NOT GIVEN.
Many expected that the decision of
the court in the dissolution suit against
the tobacco corporations would be
handed down Immediately after the
decision in the Standard Oil case. This
was not done. but 1t is expected on
May %. the last decision day of the
Court until next October.
The opinion of the court to-day was
construed to mean that the tobacco case
like every other case in which re-
straints of trade are alleged, must be
subjected to the now test OF reason
ahlcness of the restraint, as laid down
in the Standard Oil decision.
BY far the greater portion Of the
opinion of the chief Justice was de-
voted to the justification OF the court
in requiring that the rule of reason
be applied to restraints in trade be-
fore they were held to be violations
of the sherman antitrust law. The
court found this justification in the
of the country at the time the sherman
law was passed In short. the court
held that the technical words of tho
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 mean
|
else Of reason in determining what re-
straint on trade is prohibited
The suit which called forth to-day's
decision was Instituted in 1906 in the
United States circuit court for the eastern
district Of Missouri. IT was brought In
the name of the United States. The i'm
mediate object was to dissolve the Stand
ard Oil company of New Jersey.
From the very beginning. the business
and the legal worlds recognized that the
suit put the sherman antitrust law to
the most severe test to which It had been
| subjected. The law had been on the stat
ute book since 1870 and had heen the basis
Ct some IS suits finally passed upon by the
Supreme Court of the United States, That
! tho law was constitutional was accepted
| as settled by these decisions. but simple
as tho words OF tho statute seemed there
| ' as an absence Of unanimity in regard to
| It's interpretation With that situation
confronting the government and the de
| PENDANTS, the suit was begun with the
| general belief that the entire business
world would feel the effect of the outcome
Of the gigantic struggle.
| CLAIMED TWO VIOLATIONS.
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 CON
| spiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce
among the several States. or with foreign
| nations, is hereby declared to be Illegal"
The second section reads:
was explained in the statute to include
corporatons) who shall monopo,ize, or at
tempt to monOpoize or combine or con-
spire with any other person or persons,
TO monopolize any part OF trade or com
! merce among the several states, or with
foreign nations. shall he deemed guilty
Of a misdcmeanor."
The Standard oil company Of Nv
Jersey. some n subsidiary corporations.
John p. Rockefeller, William Rocketellc~,
Henry NJ Flaeler, Henry Y. Rogers, John
d Archbold. Oliver II. Payne and Charl--
NJ Pratt. all defendants in the suit,
denied the charges.
GENERAL LINE OF ATTACK.
evidence presented by the government
I h.
Rock efellers and Flagler conceived the
Idea OF controlling the petroleum trade OF
the country, and a little later entered
into a conspiracy with Rogers, Archbold
Payne and Pratt to gain a 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 or trusts
and finally when tho trust of 1882 was de-
clared void" in decision by the Ohio
| supreme court In a proceeding against
the Standard oil company of Ohio, re-
organized the STANDARD oil company OF
New Jersey to take over their Interests
and to secure monopoly. Evidence of re
batting, of price cutting, and OF thu
orra niZation of secret concerns to pose
as independents was elected to show tina
the STANDARD was seeking by unfair mea rs
TO restrain trade to procure n monopoly.
STANDARD OIL" introduced evidence &c
show that there had never been such q
conspiracy. 1t sought to prove that the
Ohio supreme court did not hold the
trust agreement of 1882 void, but merely
required the Standard on company Of
Ohio to withdraw from the trust" Fvi
dence was produced to show that re-
batting had been the ORDER Of the day
among all commercial concerns thai
price cutting and secret concerns were
not the rule and were used as legiti
mato instruments of competition.
AGAINST TRUST ON TWO COUNTS
The circuit court held that the reor-
, sanization of the STANDARD OIL company
Of New Jersey in 1909 was not only a
violation OF the first section of the act
which referred to restraints Of trade, bur
also of the second section, which applied
! TO monopolizing. The Standard oil had
argued that there could he NJ additional
restraint as a result of the reorssniza-
Lion Aesansp fhs atandaxd on sonasax