The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1911-05-15
GOVERNMENT IS VICTOR IN
THE STANDARD OIL CASE
Continued from Page !

; General Line OF Attack.
J Months were spent i'm gathering
evidence The general line of attack
as shown by evidence presented by the
government was this: It claimed that
about 1870 the Rockefellers and Flag
Ter conceived the idea of controlling
/ the petroleum trade of the country and
a little later entered into a conspiracy
with Rogers, Archbold, Payne and
Pratt to gain a control of the oil bus
mess. To carry out this alleged con-
spiracy. it was claimed, they first
peeled" their interests, then put them
into the hands of trustees or trusts"
and finally when the trust i'm 1882 was
| declared void" i'm a decision by the
Ohio Supreme Court in a proceeding
against the Standard Oil company of
| Ohio. recognized the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey 10 take over
their interests and to secure monopoly.
Evidence of rebating, of price cutting,
and of the organization of secret con-
Germs TO pose as Independents was
ELECTED to show that the STANDARD was
seeking by unfair means to restrain
trade and To procure a monopoly.
Defense of Standard Oil.
STANDARD Oil" 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 withdraw from the
trust. Evidence was produced TO
show that rebating had been the order
of the day among the commercial con-
Germs, that price cutting. and secret
concerns were not the rule and were
used as legitimate instruments of COM
petition.
The Circuit Court held that the re-
organization of the Standard oil COM
pany of New Jersey i'm 1899 was not
only a violation of the first section of
the act, which referred to restraints of
trade, but also of the second section,
which applied to monopolizing. 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 a common body
Of owners in exactly the same proper
ton that all the subsidiary 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-
ton in a single corporation or person
by an exchange of stock, of the power
of many stockholders holding the same
proportions respectively Of the major
ity OF the stock of each of several
corporations engaged in commerce in
the same articles among the states, or
with foreign nations to restrict compe- |
tition 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 courts found re,
straint on commerce..
Standard Oil Enjoined.
The court then proceeded to evolve
a plan to remedy the situation. 1t
entered a decree, enjoining the stand
ard oil company of New Jersey from
exercising any control, by reason of Its
stock ownership over the subsidiary |
Furthermore it enjoined
these subsidiary companies from pay
ing any dividends to the Standard Oil /
of New Jersey. 1t put a pre-
vision in the decree to enjoin any pos
sible evasion of the decree by the or
ganization of a similar combination
or of the conveyance of the property |
to one of the defendants. Unless the
should sever the relations
and cease the combination within thir
ty days they were to be enjoined from
engaging in Interstate commerce until |
they did cease the combination.
From the Circuit Court, the case
was brought to the Supreme Court of
the United States. The record laid |
before the higher tribunal probably |
was the largest ever prepared in an
American case. The petition, pleading |
testimony, opinions and decree consti- |
luAtu ANtnNN -NNp ioi NViuiiNo VI 4
more than 500 pages each.
The case was first argued before the |
Supreme Court i'm March 1910, but IL |
was restored to the docket for reargu-
ment. The case was heard the second |
time in January, 1911. the latter time
before a full bench. Noted attorneys
appeared on either sides. For the gov
eminent, Attorney General Wicker
sham and Frank b. Kellogg, special
assistant to the Attorney General, adj
dressed the court. For the Standard
oil, there appeared John G. Johnson,
of Philadelphia; John G. Milburn, of
New York; and ID. T. Watson Of Pitts
burg.
Mr.. keIIoge's Argument.
In his address to the court, Mr.. Kel-
logg. who took all the testimony in
the case on behalf Of the government,
said that the Standard oil organiza-
ton was not a natural growth, but
was born and reared I'm fraud and on