Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-05-16

powers IN the New jersey. Corporation as
well as by weighing the MODES in which
the power vested in that corporation has
been exerted and the results which have
arisen from IT,"
History Of the salt!
The suit which called forth todays de-
cision was Instituted in 1875 in the United
states circuit court for the Eastern district
Of Missouri II was brought IN the name Of
the United States The immediate object
was to dissolve the STANDARD on company
Of New Jersey. s- ga. ..rs.s
From the very beginning the business and
the legal worlds recognized that. the suit
put the Sherman antitrust law to the most
severe test to which It had been subjected
The law had been on the statute book since
1890 and had been the basis Of some eight
cen suits finally passed upon by the SUI
preme court Of the United states. That the
law was constitutional was accepted as set
tied by these decisions. but simple as the
words Of the statute seemed. there was an
absence of unanimity in regard to it's inter
probation. with that situation confronting
the government and the defendants, the
suit was begun with the general belief that
the entire business world would feel the
effect Of the outcome Of the gigantic
struggle.
| The government claimed that two sec
lions OF the Sherman antitrust law had
been violated The first section reads as
follows:
Every contract, combination in the form
Of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in re-
straint of trade or commences among the
several states. or with foreign nations, Is
hereby declared to be Illegal.
The second section reads:
Eyarv naroon fubfch q
/ explained in the statute to include corpora
| tions) who shall monopolize or attempt to
monopolize or combine or conspire with
any other person or persons, to monopolize
any part of trade or commerce among the
/ several states, or with foreign nations.
shall be deemed guilty OF misdemeanor.
seventy Corporations Indicted.
The Standard OIL company OF New Jersey,
some seventy subsidiary corporations, John
! d. Rockefeller. william Rockefeller, Henry
NJ. Flagler, Henry II. Rogers. John. d.
Archbold, oliver H. Payne>and Charles M.
Pratt, all defendants in the suit. denied
the charges ....
! Months were spent in gathering evidence.
! The general line of attack as shown by
evidence presented by the government was
| this, 1t alleged that about 1870 the Rookie
/ fellers and Flagler conceived the idea of
controlling the petroleum trade of the eoun-
try and q little later entered into. a CO.
spiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne and
Pratt to gain control Of the oil business.
! To carry out this alleged conspiracy, 1T
was asserted they first pooled" their i'm
terests, then put them into the hands of
trustees or trusts" and finally when the
| trust Of 1882 was declared ''void" IN a de-
cision by the Ohio supreme court in a
proceeding against the Standard OIL com
pany Of Ohio, reorganizeds the Standard
! Oil company of New Jersey to take over
/ their interests and to secure monopoly.
Evidence OF rebating, of price cutting, and
| Of the organization of secret concerns to
pose as independents was elected to show
that the Standard was seeking by unfair
means to restrain trade and to procure a
monopoly.
standard on introduced evidence to
show that there had never been such a
conspiracy. 1t sought to prove that the
Ohio supreme court did not hold the trust
agreement OF 1882 void, but merely, required
the Standard OIL company OF Ohio to with
draw from the trust" Evidence was pro-
duced to show that rebsting had been the
order of the day among commercial con-
Germs, that price cutting and secret con-
Germs were not the rule and were used as
Decision of Circuit Coprt.-s :.
The circuit court held that the reorgani-
zation Of the Standard Oil Company OF
New Jersey In 1899 was not only a violation
OF the first section Of the act. which re-
ferred to restraints OF trade, but also of
the second section. which applied to mon
opolizing. The Standard OIL had argued that
there could be no additional restraint as
result of the reorganization because the
Standard OIL Company Of New Jersey was
owned by common body OF owners In ex-
actly the same proportion that all the sub
sidiary companies taken over by this new
organization had been held by these same
common owners for years past. The court
held otherwise and said that the combina-
tion In a single corporation or person by an
exchange OF stock, OF the power of many
stockholders holding the same proportion
respectively OF the majority of the, stock OF
each Of several corporations engaged in
fSQmmerce In the same articles among the
states, or with foreign nations to restrict
competitors therein, rendered the power
thus vested in the corporation or person
greater. more easily exercised, more durable
and more effective than that previously
held by the stockholders. In these effects,
the court found a restraint In commerce.
Il The court then proceeded TO evolve a plan
70 remedy the situation. 1t entered a decree
enjoining the Standard OH Company of
New. Jersey from exercising any control
by reason OF Its stock ownership over the
subsidiary companies from paying any divi-
bends TO the Standard Oh Company. OF New
Jersey. II put provision in the decree tc
enjoin any possible evasion OF the decree
by the organization of a similar eombina-
ton or the conveyance OF the property "a
one Of the defendants. Unleas the defend.
ants should sever the relations ana cease
the combination within thirty days thew
were to be enjoinsd from engaging IN inter.
state commerce until they did cease the
cobination.
Eleven Thousand Pages.
From the circuit court the case wa
taken TO the supreme court Of the United
States. The record laid. before the .hiEhs,
tribunal probably was the largest ever
prepared In an American cass. The peti.
ton. pleedings' testimony. opinions ana =.
cree constituted twenty-two large volumes
Of more than 500 pages each,
The case was first argued before the an.
preme. court in March. 1910, but It YVES re-.
stored to the docket for reargnment. Tn.
case was heard the second tfms In Janu.