The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-30

which had enshroudcd the Sherman
anti-trust not. had been removed b,
4 tho consideration the court had giver
II 60 tho law in the Standard OIL case
recently decided.
The Chief Justice then launched forth
Into q defense OF tho rule OF reason
law as laid down by the court in the
Standard OIL case. He said:
In that case It was hold. withou,
III departing from and previous decision
z OF tho court, that as the statute had
not defined the words restraint OF
trade. II became necessary to constrnc
theee words. duty which could only
be discharged by resort to reason
We say tho doctrine thus stated was III
accord with all the previous decisions
Of this court. despite tho fact that
tho contrary view was sometimes err
oneously attributed to some of the
expressions used In two prior decisions
ttho Trans Missouri Freight Assooia-
ton and Joint traffic cnses). That such
view was mistaken one was fully
pointed out in the Standard Oil case"
The court next took up the problem
OF determining whether the acts. con-
cts. combina tons, etc. complained
of were of such IAN unusual and
wrongful character as to bring them
within the prohibitions of the law"
Effort to N1onopolizc Tobacco Trnde.
On this point the Chief Justice said
THE history of the com bination Is go
replete with the doings of acts which 1t
was the obvious purpose OF the statute
TO forbid: SO demonstrative of The ex-
istcnce from the beginning OF a pur-
pose to acquire dominion and control
of the tobacco trade. not by the mere
exertion of the ordinary right to con-
tract and to trade. but by methods de-
.vised In order to monopolize the trade
by driving competitors out OF business,
-
on the assumption that to work upon
the sears or play upon the cupidity OF
competitors would make success pos
sible."
Lastly. the Chief Justice took up a
consideration OF the treatment to be
applied. With tho combination as q
whole. with all Its cooperating and
associated parts violating both the
first section Of the Sherman law In
regard to restraint OF trade and tbs
second section in reference to attempts
to monopolise or a -nonopol cation. the
Chief Justice declared that the relief
must DO wider than that awardod by
the lower court HIRES
The circuit court. he said. had mere
~ decided that certain OF the corporate
defendants constituted combinations Sin
violation OF the first section OF the act,
holding that they were formed BY the
union OF previously competing oon-
Germs.
In arriving at the proper relief the
court said that It had been guided BY
three dominant influences: the first OF
these was described as "the duty of
giving complete and eficacious effect
to the prohibitions of the statute"
The second was described as the
duty of accomplishing this result with
as little Injury as possible to the gem
eral public
. u =
regard for the vast interests OF private
property which may have become vest
ed In many persons S a result of the
acquisition either by way OF stock
ownership OF otherwise OF inter-
ests in the stock or securities OF
the combination without any guilty
knowledge or intent in any way to
become actors or participants in the
wrongs which We nnd to have inspired
and dominated the combination from
the beginning"
Involves Grent Difficulty.
Z Hcsitating to pronounce the decree.
the court said that the case involved
difficulty greater than had been pre-
scented by any Sherman ANTITRUST case
which had been before the court.
AT last, tho Chief Justice said that
the decree should be as follows: rs
First, that the com bination, In and
OF itself. was. as well as each and all
or The elements com posing It, whether
corporate or individuals, whether con :
ftdered collectively or separately, and
Is decreed TO be in restraint OF trade
decentralization within the first and Sec
ond sections of the anti trust law.
second. that the court below. in or
der TO give effective force TO our de :
cree In this regard, be directed TO hear
ihe parties by evidence or otherwise as
II may be deemed proper for the pur-
pose OF ascertaining and Determining
upon some plan or method OF dissolv-
ING me comoina ton and of recreating
out OF the elements now composing n
new condition. which shall be hon.
estly IN harmony With and not repur-
nant to the law 10
Third that for the Accomplishment,
these purposes. taking in View the
oihculty OF the situation. period Of
Sly months is allowed from the receip,
or our mandate. with leave, however
IN the event. in the Judgment OF ~,
court below, the necessities of thu sit.
uatlon require. 20 extend such pcrJoe
days. 81 - : y
Fourth. that in the evsnt. befor. ~
expiration Of the period thus nxe6
conoiuon OF disintcgration in harmon,
with the law Is not brought ehout
.ither as the consequences Of the nc.
tlon OF the court in determining an Is
sue OF the subject, or in accepting ,
plan agreed upon. It shall be the out,
OF the court either by way of an In,
junction restraining tho movement O
sne prooucta OF the combination in tn,
chahneis or interstate or foreign com
merce or BY the appointment OF a rc
ceiver. to give effect 10 the reorire
ments OF the statute
Tending the bringing about of III.
result. just stated, each and ali of III,
detendants. individuals as we'll as cor
porations should be restrained from
doing any act which might further ex
,end or elSarge the power OF the com
bination, by any means or device ,vha,
soever In View OF the consideration
we have stated VIC leave the matter L
the court below 70 work out a compli
- -