Omaha daily bee., 1911-01-02
ANTITRUST FIGHT RENEWED


Continued from First Page)
later enters into commerce. The bulwark
behind which the tobacco organization Is
making its fight along this line is the
famous Knight decision. made even more
famous by the reference to IL by former
President Roosevelt last fall In criticislng
the decision of the supreme court. In
that case the court declined to suppress an
alleged monopoly in manufacture of sugar,
on the ground that it had authority 70
proceed only by way of preventing mon
opoles in commerce. The tobacco corpora
tons claim that they are concerned only
incidentally in commerce.
Again the dispute as TO what Is included
in the word Commerce" referred to
i'm the Sherman antitrust law, arises in
connection with the character OF q hold
ing company. Both the Standard OIL and
the tobacco organizations contend that
the power granted by the constitution TO
regulate interstate commerce is not so
extensive as to include regulation Of the
acquisition and ownership OF holding
company of stock in other corporations.
The government argues that whenever a
holding company necessarily STILES or d.
recty and substantially restricts free
competition in commerce the United States
has power TO protect such commerce.
what Is "Restraintf"
In the contest regarding the answer to
the question of what is restraint of
trade or commerce." the first dispute is
over the Interpretation Of restraint of
trade" as equivalent to the absence of free
competition" The government advances
the theory that reduction OF competi-
ton means a restraint on trade and con-
sequently higher prices. The corporations
urge that a combination of producers may
mean reduction OF expenses and con-
seGueDf'y lower prices.
The government further contends that the
Sherman antitrust law refers only to such
restraints as are direct and material. One
judge in psssing on the tobacco case. In
the circuit court held that the law referred
to every restraint without regard to di-
rectness or materiality. 1t is said that
this doctrine would stifle legitimate bust
ness. The defendant organizations do not
press this argument so much, because they
claim in their cases that no direct and
material restraint of commerce exists. This
claim is based upon the argument that
they are engaged principally, not in inter-
state commerce as we're the railroads In
the northern securities case but in the
.
interstate commerce later.
The third division OF the contest is over
the Interpretation Of the word mono
police" The Standard OIL is particularly
concerned with this phase of the con-
troversy. because the lower court found
that It was attempting to monopolize. At
torneys for the company advance the
argument that under the law it could
legally acquire the trade OF the world in
an article provided 1t did nothing to
prevent others from competing with IT.
They declare the Standard OIL has done
nothing to prevent others from competing.
Success has come to II, so they claim. be-
cause of "untiring energy, infinite skill
abundant capital and steady relnvestment
OF early profit" The government has piled
\ up volume on volume to support its con-
tention that success was achieved by un-
fair competition.
Corporation Tax Cases.
The corporation tax cases eighteen in
all. involve entirely different arguments.
The corporation tax provisions of the
Payne-Aldrich tariff act provide for "a
/ special excise tax with respect TO the
carrying on or doing business" by CDR
porations, equivalent to one per centum
upon the entire net income over and above
5000"
Each of the cases was originated in
various circuit courts by persons finsn-
cialiy interested in the tax not being paid.
These persons asked the courts 10 enjoin
| the payment of the tax by respective cor
pOratons because the tax was unconsu-
tutional. The validity Of the tax was up
! held in each case.
The law is opposed principally on the
J grounds that it attacks the sovereignty OF
the states by taxing state franchises; that
Il invades the right to due process Of Law
/ by levying a tax on classes fixed
arbitrarily; and that It Is direct tax not
apportioned among the states, as required
by the constitution.