The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-05-19
COURT DECIDES
AGAINST STANDARD OIL
BY Associated Press.

OlA sims NAN SNfNtN
ment victory. The government has
won it's case in the supreme court
of the United States against the Stand
ard oil company of the New Jersey, in
that II is conspiracy and monopoly
I'm restraint of trade. The decree of
the lower court affirmed being modi-
fed in a few particulars, which Chief
Justice White said were slight. JUS
tice Harland announced a dissenting
opinion
The suit which called forth Mondays
decision was instituted in 1906 in the
United States circuit court for the
eastern district of Missouri. 1t was
brought in the name of the United
States. The immediate object was to
dissolve the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey.
From the very beginning, the busi-
ness and the legal worlds recognized
that the suit put the Sherman anti
trust 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
eighteen suits finally passed upon by
the supreme court of the United States.
That the law was constitutional was
accepted as settled by these decisions,
but simple as the words OF the statute
seemed, there was an absence of un-
animity in regard 10 its interpreta-
ton 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
sections of the Sherman antitrust
law had been violated. The first Sec
tion reads as follows:
Every contract, combination in the
form of trust or otherwise, or con-
spiracy, in restraint of trade or com
merce among the several states, or
with foreign nations, is hereby declar.
ed to be illegal"
The second section reads:
Every persons (Which subsequently
was explained in the statute to in
clude corporations) who shall mon
opolize or attempt to monopolize or
combine or conspire with any ther per-
son or persons, to monopolize, any
part of trade or commerce among the
several states, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a misde.
: meanor"
The Standard Oil company of New
Jersey, some seventy subsidiary cor
porations, John D. Rockefeller, viii
liam Rockefeller, Henry NJ Flagler
Henry H. Rogers, John I. Archibold
oliver H. Payne and Charles M. Pratt
all defendants in the suit, denied the
charges.
, Months were spent in gathering evi
dence. 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 little later entered into a con
spiracy with Rogers. Archbold, Payne
and Pratt to gain control of the oil
: business. To carry out this alleged
conspiracy, it was claimed, they first
pooled" their interests, then put then
into the hands of trustees or trusts
and finally when the trust of 1882 was
{ Ideclared ''void" in a decision by the
: Ohio supreme court in a proceeding
against the Standard Oil company o1
Ohio, reorganized the Standard Oi
, 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 con
Germs to pose as independents wa!
!, elected to show that the Standard wa.
t seeking by unfair means to restrain
trade and to procure a monopoly.
: STANDARD On' introduced evidenc,
7 to show that there had never been sucl
! a conspiracy. 1t sought to prove tha
: Ohio supreme court did not hold tn,
2 trust agreement of 1882 void. bu
merely required the Standard Oil com
e pany of Ohio to withdraw from tn,
I trust" Evidence was produced t
9 show that rebating had been the orde
e of the day among all commercial con
Germs. that price cutting and secre
b concerns were not the rule and wer
e used as legitimate instruments o
|, competition.
: The circuit court held that the re
organization of the Standard Oil com
g pany of New Jersey in 1899 was no
y only violation of the first section o
|. the act, which referred to restraint
of trade, but also of the second sec
finn which annliod fo monooOI;.i,o n