Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-05-16

literally construed. but are to be con-
strued in the light Of reason.
On this point the court held that the
position Of the government that the
supreme court had decided that any
qualifications Of this phrase was pre-
cluded by previous decisions OF the SUI
preme court was erroneous
Speaking of this error Of the govern
ment. Chief Justice White, in his opin-
ion, said: This is true because as the
acts which may come under the classes
stated in the first section and the re-
straint Of trade to whici, that section
applies are not specifically enumerat-
ed or defined, It Is obvious that judg-
ment must In every case be called into
play in order to determine whether a
particular case Is embraced in the
statutory classes and whether If the
act is within such classes its nature
or effect causes 1t to be restraint Of
trade within the intend.nent OF the act.
ITO hold to the contrary would re-
quire the conclusion either that every
contract, act or commission OF any
kind or nature, whether it operated in
restraint Of trade or not was within
the statute, and thus the statute would
be destructive OF all right to contract
or agree or combine IN any respect
whatever az to subjects embraced in
interstate trade or commerce: or, It
this conclusion were not reached then
the contention would require it to be
held that az the statute did not define
the things to which + related and ex-
cluded resort to the only means by
which the scts Of which 1t relates
could be ascertained--the light Of rea-
son-the enforcement OF the statute
- 20 1rnp
tainty. ~
combinasIsn Destroyed Composition.
Chief Justice White said the court
found no clause to doubt the conctIs-
ION Of the court below, namely:
That the acts and dealings estab-
lished by the proof operated to destroy
the .potentiality OF competition which.
otherwise would have existed to such
an extent as to cause the transfers OF
stock which were made to the New
Jersey corpora ton and :!.:e cont-c!
which resulted over the many subsld-
ary corpora tons to be combination or
conspiracy in restraint of trade In v1o-
lation Of the first section Of the act but
also to be an attempt to monopoize
and a monopolzat ton bringing about a
perennial violation Of the second Sec
tion."
He based the conclusion Of the court
that the holdings below were right on
two broad reasons. These were stateo
by the chief justice to b ~ foHowE
lntsndsd 20 Rule industry.
sA-Because the 1lntf3cat1on and pow
er OF control over petroleum, and its
products which was the Inevitable re-
suit Of the combining in the New tJer-
soy, corporation by the increase OF Its
stock and the transfer to dt OF the stock
Of the many other corporations aggre-
eating 30 vast q capital gave rise, In
and Of itself In the absence OF conter-
waiting circumstances, to say the least.
to the ,prima facie presumption OF IN
tent and purpose to maintain the
dominancy over the: oil. industry. not as
: result OF normal methods OF INDUS
trial development but by neens OF
combdnations which were resorted to IN
ordsr t1sAt greater power mfght be add-
Cd than would; otherwise have aTisen
had normal methods neen followed the
whole with the pnrpose of excluding
others from the trade and thus CEN
tralixing in the combination q perpet-
uaf control Of the movements of petrol
cum and ttssproducts in the channels
of Interstate commerce.
Monopoiixation Evident.
"B-Because the pr1ma 1aeie pre-
sumption Of Intent to restrain trade to
.u,ouopoli7e and to bring about monop-
niixa<4on s,nnalltirse from the act Of eX-