The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1911-05-23
CT EMS ON TIE DECISION.


/ The Gate City is devoted for the most
part TO what the eminent New York
flnancier calls the hroa6minded in
depreciation of the Sherman law con
tanned in the supreme courts decision
! in the Standard OIL case He says
I that so far as the Oil Company Itself
is concerned. the ruling could scarcely
the corporation no choice but 10 dis
/ solve and abandon its present COM
/ bination method of doing business.
/ This. he foresees. will involve the dis
tribution of the corporations assets
I of all kinds among its stockholders
/ and the establishment of what are
al present subsidiary companies on
| a practical working basis as independ-
ent concerns. As 10 this Mr.. Clews
writes:
1T is a process which means in its
turn the division of the securities OF
the subsidiary organizations among
the many holders of the at present
parent organization. the result, il will
be seen. Is not necessarily a great
hardship, aside from the tremendous
amount of clerical work involved.
While every effort will. of course, be
made TO comply with the courts de-
cree. the fact will remain that the
ownership of the various subsidiary
organizations will still remain under
the control of the majority ownership
of the present holding company. The
court provides that the constituent
companies may contract and agree
with each other There will probably.
therefore. he no serious financial loss
es to stockholders"
Mr.. Clews explains that it is the
broader question involved in the de-
cision that is responsible for the re-
lief that has been shown in financial
circles since the decision was pro-
mulgated. The court has given a not
unexpected Interpretation to the
statute by declaring that it forbids only
unreasonable restraint of trade-re-
straint by which the public at large
is sufferer. The Sherman law was
enacted. primarily. to put on the ma
tional statute books the penalties of the
common law in regard to trade re
straint This is something that Sem
ator Hoar very clearly expressed dur
was under discussion before its en-
actment. He showed that there was
not any common law of the United
States and that the common law pre-
yailing in the separate states of the
Union could not, as such. be enforced
h., cd hx-r ~
penalty or punishment. This explana-
ton affords considerable light on the
decision that has just been announced,
for it follows the common law prfn-
ciple that restraint OF trade TO be
punishable must be unreasonable
that is to say. it must restrain COM
petition TO an extent that will cause
direct harm to the public. Mr.. Clews
goes ON TO say:
On this broad ground. it is evident
that our industrial combinations that
do not injure public interests have
now nothing 10 fear from the Sher
man law Instead o. killing this
statute. our supreme court may be
said TO have vitaiizd il Chief Justice
White very properly intimated that
by applying the rule OF -easou 10 the
act instead OF following II literally the
court has probably saved the statute
from condemnation as an unco1stiru-
tional enactment A literal interpresa-
ton OF the law would mean impair
msat Of pFopsr1r rights, In obvious
violation OF Constitutional rights i
gratifying feature is tie fact thar the
supreme court bench IS virtually unaa-
imous in i1s attitude on the uast
question. The decision viii 20 z long
way towards removing the teeliag o.
discrimination that mas existed
against industrials as E class because
OF the fear that their entire form OF
organization was sntagonisric 70 he
provisions OF the antitrust Lax Tzere
Is no longer occasion 10 fear such
condition N case OF hose OF our great
industrial combinations thar ara N
der the direction q men OF integrity
and ability All whfca do not sex 81
unfair means 20 nououo-ize - II
dustriez Etth which ther are COZ
nected
49, 80 -.t--