The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-05-17

the government. He dismissed the
Objection 10 the jurisdiction in a few
words, 10y holding thar it was not well
founded. lie ti.cn came To the argu-
meEtS as To the law and the facts in
the case saying that out Of the inn
g.c' Of law and facts both sides wore
agreed only in oae thing, ana that was
that the determination Of the contro-
NerSy rested upon the proper construc-
ton and application of tie first and
second sections of the antitrust acts
The views Of the two sides as to the
law, the chief justice said, were as
wide apart as the poles. The same he
said, was true as to the facts.
Thus, on the one hand, with re-
lentless pertinacity and minuteness Of
analysis, said the chief justice. "it is
insisted that the facts established that
the assailed combination took IFS birth
IN purpose to unlawfully acquire
wealth by depressing the public and
destroying the just rights of others.
and that it's entire career eXemplifies
an ineXorable carrying out Of such
wrongful intentS, since, it is asserted.
the pathway Of the combination from
the beginning Of the time Of the filing
of the bill is marked with constant
proofs of wrong influence upon the
public and is strewn with the wrecks
resulting from crushing out without
regard to law the individual rights of
others.
'lt is asserted that the existence Of
he principal corporate defendant. the
i,andard oil Company of New Jersey.
Gi,h its vast accumulation Of prop
crty, because of its potency for harm
and the dangerous example which its
continued existence affords, is an open
and enduring menace to all freedom
of trade and byword and reproach
to all modern economic methods.
ION the other hand, in powerful
analysis of the facts, it is insisted that
they demonstrate that the origin and
development af the vast business
which the defendants control was but
the result Of lawful competitive meth
ods guided by economic genius Of the
highest order, sustained by courage.
by keen insight into the CONNER
cial situation resulting in the acuuisi-
tion of great wealth, but at the same
time serving to stimulate an increas-
ed production. to widely extend the
distribution of the products Of pc
troleum at a cost largely below that
which previously prevailed"
In this state of affairs. the chief
Justice seized upon the single point
Of concord, namely, the application
of the two sections of the Sherman
antitrust law, as the initial basis of
an extension Of the contention. The
rest of his opinion divided itself into
a consideration Of the meaning of the
sherman antitrust claw in the light
of the common law and the law of
the United States at the time of its
adoption, the contentious Of the par
ties concerning the act and the SCOPE
and effect of the decisions of the su-
preme court, the application 10 the
fact and lastly the remedy.
In striving to get at the meaning
Of the two sections of the law. he
said the sole subject with which the
first section dealt was restraint of
trade" and that the attempt to
monopolize the monopolization" was
the subject Of the second section.
The chief justice said that in getting
at the meaning Of the words he would
be guided by the principle that where
words are employed in IA statute.
which at the time had a we'll known
meaning in common law. or in the
law Of this country, they were pre-
Sumed to have been used in this sense
unleH} TIE context compels to the
cor.rcIy.
Ilc summarized his search into the
common law and the law of the coun-
try at the time the Sherman anti
trust law was passed so far as the
hrSt section was concerned as fol-
lows:
~ That the context manifests
that the statute was drawn in the lighl
"i the existing practical conception Of
the law Of resraint of trade because
it groups as within that class not
only contracts which were in re-
Suaint of trade i'm the subjective
sense but all contracts or acts which
thorctcally were attempts To mon