Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-01-03

to accomplish the dlSSOlutlOn OF the
! "Standard Oil' and of the American
! Tobacco organizations embodying the
| greatest antitrust" fight of the gen.
Grafton, will be taken up for the sec
ond time by the supreme court of the
United States at the beginning of it's
work for the new year. Continuing
it's consideration OF affairs of govern
ment, the court will Immediately af-
| forwards give it's attention to the con-
stitutionality of the corporation tax
provisions of the Payne-Aldrich tariff
! act
All three cases attracted worldwide
attention when first presented to the
court about a year ago. With the
! object of procuring consideration by a
| full bench, they were set for re-argu
ment on January 8. Intervening cases
will cause a delay until probably Jan
uary 5, when it is believed that the
arguments in the Tobacco case will
begin. The Standard Oil and the cor
poration tax arguments will follow.
About three days will be required for
each.
The Standard Oil and the Tobacco
cases put the Sherman antitrust law
to the most crucial test to which it
has been subjected during the twenty
years of it's existence. The corpora
ton tax places place on, trial the pow
er of the federal government over
corporations. The contention has
been made that if the Standard Oil
and the Tobacco organizations are
a;c,olXod Tho cro,,o rprnonf will no fOrc.
ed to license corporations in order
to allow legitimate business to be car
ried on. The corporation may define
the power of the federal government
over corporations so as to guide this
proposed subsequent legislation. In
cidentally, about $25,0OOOOO annually
in taxes depend upon the decision.
Although the Tobacco case is to be
argued first, the Standard Oil suit has
attracted more attention. Attorney
General Wickersham has referred to
the Standard Oil case as probably the
! most important that ever came before
the court.
The Standard Oil suit was instituted
in 1906 in the circuit court Of the
United States for the eastern divis.
ion of the Eastern Judicial district of
Missouri The federal government
was the complaining party. 1t claim
ed that the Standard Oil Company of
| New Jersey, as holding company,
acquired since -299 and held by d.
rect stock ownership, sixty-fiye COM
panies. - These ,sixtXatYe.. twas alleg-
ed. owned the lock of forty-nine 9TH
err companies, making a total of ia
companies. The government asked
that this organization be dissolved
under the Sherman antitrust law.
A year was taken by the four
Judges in the circuit court to pass
on the case BY unanimous agree
ment, decree was entered by the
court dissolving the organization, both
because it was RESTRAINT of interstate
commerce" and because 1t was at
tempting to monopolize." Before the
decree became effective an appeal
carried the case to the supreme court.
The Tobacco case was instituted IN
the circuit court of the United States
for the Southern district of New York.
The government here, too, was the
complaining party. Allies in the var
ious branches of the tobacco business,
with combined assets OF more than
$500 100000, constituted the organl'
cation which the government sought
to have the court dissolve.
The four judges each rendered sep
arate opinions in the Tobacco case,
hut three of them united in decree,
holding many of the corporations lin
restraint of trade" in violation of the
first section of the anti-Sherman law.
These three decreed the dissolution OF
this combination. Other corporations,
including the United Cigar Stores
company, the Imperial Tobacco COM
pany and the British-American COM
pany. were found not to be in the
combination. None were held to be
"mcnopolizing" in violation of the
second section of the anti-Sherman
law.
The application of the Sherman an
thrust law to these organizations,
involves not only an investigation In
to the facts, but includes an inter
probation of the law itself. The prin-
ciDal uncertainties in regard to the
law cluster around three words in the
statute. These words form the basis
of three questions, what Ia com
merce?" what is RESTRAINT" of trade
or commerce? and what is t to mo /;
nopolize?" !
Around "what is commerce. the
principal fight in the tobacco case
probably is to be found. The COM
merce which the government claims
is being restrained and monopolized
is not commerce, according to the
Tohacco ATTORNEYS. 1t is nothing
more than the manufacture OF an artl-
Gle which later enters into commerce.
The bulwark behind which the To-
bacco organization making it's. fight i
along this line is the famous Knight
decision, made even more famous by
the reference to it by former Presl
dent Roosevelt last fall in criticlslng
the decisions of the supreme court.
In that case the court declined to sup
pres> an alleged monopoly in manu-.
facture of sugar. on the ground that
it had authority to proceed only by
way of preventing monopolles IN COM
merce. The tobacco corporations
claim that they are concerned only
incidentally in commerce.