Omaha daily bee., 1911-05-16
Decree of Lower Court Upheld, with
Slight Notifications.
TWO POINTS IN THE DECISION
Unification of Power and Effect of
Agreements Cited.
SUIT STARTED FIVE YEARS AGO
IL Was Filed In Sc. Louis in 1900
and Printed Record of Case
Made Twcnty-Tvo Large
Volumes.
Volumes.

WASHINGTON, Nav ib--The govern
ment today won its case in the supreme
court of the United States against the
Standard OIL company OF New Jersey in
that It is a conspiracy and monopoly in
restraint of trade. The decree of the lower
court was affirmed. being modified in
particulars, which Chief Justice White said
were slight
Justice Harlan announced a dissenting
opinion.
The decree Of the lower court was modi-
fled so that there need not be IAN abso-
lutte cessation OF Interstate commerce in
petroleum and its products by such vast
agencies as are embraced in the combina-
ton result which might arise from that
portion of the decree which enjoned carry
ing on OF interstate commerce not only
by the New Jersey corporation but by all
Of the subsidiary companies until the
| dissolution OF the combination of stocks In
| accordance with the decree.
The court also extended the time from
one to six months in which the dissolu-
tion must take place.
white Reads Decision.
The decisions, which contains about 25,ooo
words, was read by Chief Justice White. u
was Chief Justice White. who had lent
his voice TO the refusal of the court to
dissolve the so-called sugar trust. when the
! famous knight case was before the court.
He also delivered a dissenting opinion when
the Northern Securities company was dis
solved by tho court as being In violation
of the Sherman anti-tr,ist.iaw.
. on the Knight case. the STANDARD Oil de-
pended largely for support; on the majority
| opinion in the Northern Securities case the
government had founded much of its hope.
! ~ hot (xauRral
wickersham, who had directed the govern
ment's battle during It's latter stages, was
not delighted when the chief Justice began,
but he maintained some hope of success.
Chief Justice White first went into an
extensive recital of the facts in the case
and then held that the court had juFts-
diction over the suit which had been ques-
toned by the Standard OIL.
jungle of Law and Testimony.
Chief Justice White said that the conten-
tions were as divergent as the ends OF the
earth. He spoke of a Jungle OF testi-
mony and Of law. The only point in which
the two sides were in accord was that
the first and second sections of the Sher-
man antitrust law controlled the case. Tho
chief justice said the court seized on this
point as a basis on which TO work out a
decision.
Taking up the two sections. the chief
Justice began consideration of the law,
promising to come later TO It's application
to the present case. He first took up the
common law which dealt with the problems
raised by the Sherman antitrust law.
BY the reorganization of the Standard OIL
Of New Jersey the chief justice said that
there was prima facie evidence that there
was an endeavor TO control and monopolize;
that further Investigation made this con-
elusive presumption Of an intent to restrain
trade. He said only the question Of remedy
remained for consideration.
Law aud Reason.
Probably the most important decision OF
law laid down in the opinion was that the
words in the statute every restraint Of
trade" are not to be literally construed,
but are TO he construed in the Light Of rea-
son.
on this point the court held that the posi-
tion of the government that the supreme
court had decided that any qualification of
this phrase was precluded by previous de-
cisions of the supreme court was erroneous.
Speaking Of this error Of the government,
Chief Justice White, in his opinion said
This is true because as the acts which
may come under the classes stated in the
first section and the restraint OF trade to
which that section applies are not specific
ally enumerated on defined, II is obvious
that Judgment must in every case he called
into play in order TO determine whether a
particular case Is embraced within the
statutory classes and whether II the act
is within such classes its nature or effect
causes II TO be a restraint of trade within
the intendment Of the act.
To hold to the contrary would require
conclusion either that every contract
or commission OF any kind or nature
acr it operated in restraint OF trade oI
vas within the statute, and thus thC