The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-07-22
is IT POSSIBLE
To Control Trusts With Pres
ent Anti Legislation?
Standard Oil Men Still Own and
Control Supply.
MAY USE ANOTHER PLAN
Supervise Workings of COrpo-
ratiOns Is Better Way.
Federal Control of Railroads
Points Way Out.
MAY USE ANOTHER PLAN

New York, July Cit has at last
been established under oath by a COM
petent witness testifying in judicial
proceedings that there is practically
no difference in the management of the
Standard Oil interests today as COM
pared with the management before the
dissolution of the Standard Oil trust, So
called, in obedience to the decree of
the supreme court.
This testimony, taken in connection
| with indirect and yet reliable evidences
that the affairs of the American To-
| bacco company are managed practical
ly as was the case before this COM
pany was dissolved by decree of the
supreme court, give abundant proof
that the dissolution of these trusts has
| resulted merely in a change of terms
and not of fundamental conditions.
| This would tend to show that it is i'm
possible under the Interpretation of the
| Sherman law-Which was made by the
| supreme court in the Standard Oil and
| American Tobacco company cases, tc
| secure absolute independence between
corporations producing like products,
/ and that 1T is therefore impossible real
| ~ to end what has been called the
| monopolistic power of combinations.
James A. Moffett, a vice president
| and director of the Standard On COM
pany of New Jersey, admitted upon
the witness stand in the Standard Oil
Waters-Pierce litigation now in pro-
gress in this city that the method of
doing business carried on by the Stand
ard Oil company of New Jersey is, in
effect IT not in appearance and in name,
precisely similar to the methods in
vogue before the Standard Oil trust
was dissolved.
When the Standard Oil and Tobac-
co company cases were pending the
question was frequently asked by law
years: Would it be possible under
the law to prohibit any one individual
from possessing stock in more than
one corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of like comm ODDITIES ?" The
answer was uniformly that no law
now prohibits such ownership and
| Furthermore if one were passed it
would probably be found unconsti-
tutional. Upon that Interpretation in
which the supreme court inferentially,
| at least, agreed with the lawyers, the
present management of the Standard
Oil company and of the Tobacco COM
pany apparently base their ability
practically to do lawfully what as
trusts they were prohibited from do
How They Do It.
The directors and officers of the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey
who are also individual stock holders
in various other companies over which
formerly the Standard Oil company
was in complete authority, do now
meet as directors or officers of the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey.
AS such they have a clear legal right
to discuss and manage the affairs of
that company while as individuals
owning stock in what were formerly
subsidiary companies, they can and do
discuss among themselves the affairs
of these independent companies. It is
inconceivable that this should now
open the way for common under
standings although these may not
- b. % @al mtg
From one point of view this is the
community of interests" principle.
The American Tobacco company is
in like manner able in perfectly law
full way to intimate or insinuate to the
officers of companies which were for
merly subsidiary to the American To-
bacco Trust what are the expedient
things to do.
is especially fortified. The British
American Tobacco company is a for
eign corporation. AS such 1t has the
right under the law to open an ofhce
in New York City. James B. Duke,
one of the creators of the American
Tobacco company and still believed
to have large stock holdings in some
of the companies formerly subsidiary
but now under the law indepenqenI Is
of high authority in the British
American company; it is generally un-
derstood that he is now practically the
head of it.
There
meetings of those who have large in
+erests in the British American COM
nanv at the offices of that company in
New York but In almost all cases of
this kind IT will be found that those
who thus meet together in the British |
American office are also in authority |
in one or another of the various COM |
panfes over which the American To-
bacco trust formerly had control. At |
these meetings it is not necessary to |
make formal agreements. A little in
formal or friendly conversation. or ex-
change of views would probably be suf-
ficient.
Is It Impossible?
If the recent experience of the man
ayers of the Standard Oil company and
of the American Tobacco company does
demonstrate that the Sherman law as
Interpreted by the supreme court can
not in effect, although it may in name,
prevent combinations, it is probable |
that congress will be so informed. 1t
may be said to congress that no legis- |
Ia ton short of that of anarchy can pre- |
vent the ' orking of fundamental |
economic law. That fact being recog- |
nized then congress may be disposed so |
to supplement the Sherman law as to |
provide a means by which the govern |
rnent supervise the combinations In |
some such manner as it does now su-
pervise and regulate the railway |
CORPORATION. This, of course, would ap- |
ply only to corporations whose business
is of interstate commerce character.
A Peculiar Tobacco Market.
Never before have the bonded ware |
houses of this city held in bond as |
great an amount OF surplus tobacco rs |
they are doing at the present time. |
American manufacturers of cigarettes
made of Turkish tobacco learned some
time ago that the tobacco crop in Tur- |
.1oA