Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1911-06-01
Martin on Sta ndard Oil

Martin on tandard Oil
A severe criticism of the decision OF
the United States supreme court IN the
Standard Oil case is contained in a
statement made public at Washington,
Thursday, by Representative Eben W..
Martin, of South Dakota. Mr.. Martin
takes the position, in substance, that
the courts Interpretation of the law in
this particular case makes perfectly
legal restraints" of t.ade that are
not unreasonable in their influence upon
interstate commerce.
Here are some of the striking sem
fences in Mr.. Martins statement:
Ancient monopolies were granted by
the crown. Are modern monopolies,
if reasonable, to be dispensed by the
supreme court?
If the view strongly limited at in the
discussion of the chief justice shall be
finally adopted by the supreme court
as law, the trusts will have presented
to them by judicial Interpretation
VIVA they never could hope to obtain
by legislation.
Meanwhile Wall street is exultant
and trust stocks are advancing on the
stock market.
Such an Interpretation makes the
law nugatory as a criminal statute
and renders the civil remedies almost
impossible of enforcement.
If there has been doubt as to the
meaning of this statute the doubt has
become confusion worse confounded'
since the opinion of the supreme court
in the Standard Oil case.
The confusion arises from the
learned, exhaustive and subtle discus
sion of the chief justice upon the his
tory, purpose and meaning of the anti
trust law.
Law Should be Changed
Mr.. Martin is member of the house
committee on interstate and foreign
commerce, to which will be referred
in this congress bills amendatory of
the antitrust act. Mr.. Martin insists
that the law should be changed in
important particulars. On this point
he said:
The experience of the government
with the Standard Oil company empha-
sizes again the absolute necessity for
national regulation of the great indus
trial corporations. Criminal and civil
remedies in the courts are wholly mad
equate. These cannot be abandoned.
but the time has come for thorough
going system of regulation that will
prevent violations of the law.
Every great corporation should
either operate under federal charter
or be required to obtain a federal
license. In either case there must be
full disclosure to the department of
commerce and labor of the nature of
their organization and their methods
of business, with system of exami-
nations as complete as the examina-
ton of our national banks. There
must be effective safeguards against
private monopolies. Corporations that
operate lawfully should be fully pro-
tected in their franchises; those that
will not should be barred from all par
ticipation in interstate commerce.
Again referring to the courts
decision in the Standard Oil case, Rep
resentative Martin insists that the
opinion is ambiguous. 1.-TWO conclu-
sions can be drawn from the opinion
with reasonable certainty" he said.
Zone is that the court does not adopt a
literal Interpretation of the language
of the statute that every contract,
combination or conspiracy in restraint
of trade is illegal, and that the court
does not supply any new rule of inter-
probation by which it may be known
whether any particular contract, COM
bination or conspiracy in restraint of
trade is Illegal