Show TRUST RULED OUT f I Decision by Me e r United States Supreme Court COUlt s sIS I IS I STAND t OIL CO COt t F AntiTrust law at State Is r lid lidI I r w I A Opinion on Rendered by y Justice i ce McKen McKenna i I II na Who Confines to a aI Discussion of the Texas T Law as I Applicable to ta Tilts This Case Ce and Does Doe Not Mot Enter Into a General Consid Consideration Consideration Consideration of Trusts Trus Justice stice Harlan Dissented From Prom the Opinion pinion Washington March Marc 19 In the Unit United United United ed States supreme court today y an opinion ion on was handed down in tHe llie case of the Waters Pierce Oil on company comI ny involving its right to do business ift i the th state of o I Texas contrary to the provisions of I the state antitrust lairs lai la s of 1889 and 1895 It was charged c among ong other I things that the Waters Pierce company was a member of the Standard Oil trust as organized in 1882 and various other allegations were made but the court i idid Idid did not enter upon a general discus discussion I Ision sion of trusts contenting Itself with a discussion of the Texas law as t ble to this case The opinion sustained the decisions of the state court to the extent of af i i them and amid was thus opposed to the contentions of ot the oil oU company but butt it i t did this upon the ground that the I state laws Imposed a condition which i ithe the oil company iad accepted d and hence was wa without ground of com corn complaint complaint plaint N S Opinion by McKenna M Xenna The opinion was handed down by b Justice McKenna who reviewing the case said that the Waters Pierce com corn company pany was a private corporation in incorporated incorporated InCorporated in Missouri 1 is ouri which had be begun begun begun gun business in the state of Texas in 1889 The suit grew out of the charge that the oil company violated the stat statutes statutes statutes utes of the state of 1889 and 1895 against illegal combinations in re restraint restraint restraint of trade thereby incurring a forfeiture of its permit to do business in the state The trial was first held in the dis court of Travis county in which the verdict was against the oil com corn company company pany On appeal to the court of civil appeals of the state this decision was affirmed and it was brought to this i court on a writ of error The basis basle of the action was the Standard Oil trust organized in 1882 and it was owned that its intention was to control and monopolize the petroleum industry of the United States in restriction tion of trade dividing the markets of the United Uni d States into int various subdivisions awarding Texas to the Waters Pierce company The decision of today todar was w was s I based bas d upon the propositions which were submitted to the jury in the inal trial Views of the Court I Justice McKenna said The trans transactions tt transactions ns actions of local commerce which were held by the state stat courts to be viola violations violations violations of the statute provided in con can contracts contracts tracts with certain merchants in which the plaintiff in error required them to buy oil exclusively eh from it and from no other source or buy exclusively of the complainant In error and not to sell seU to any an person handling competing oils or to buy exclusively from plaint plaintiff iff in error and to sell at a price fixed by it The statutes he be continued must be considered in reference to these con contracts contracts tracts In any other aspect aspe t the they are not subject to ta our review on this rec record record ord except the power of or the state i court to restrict their regulation to lo 10 local local cal commerce com upon which a contention is raised He said the propositions raised by bythe tie the state courts had been broadly dis discussed discussed cussed 1 and many considerations tran transcending transcendIng transcending them had bad been Continued on Pare Pago Pa TRUSTS OUT Of TEXAS Continued from Page Pago 1 lag ins to grievances which do not enter into the case as a affecting the oil oi com corn company compan pany pan The rhe court felt constrained to confine ance arias itself to this particular grievance Powers Power of the State Stating this grievance he said it was that the statutes statute of Texas limit its it right to make contracts and take away the liberty assured by the Fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States Besides it was asserted that the statutes made many discriminations between n persons and classes of ot persons On this latter point the court did not feel called caled upon to pass The oil company is a foreign corpora corporation corpora corporation oi tion and its right of contracting in the ton state of Texas Teas was the only subject of inquiry On this thi point pint the opinion held that the state prescribes prescribe the purposes purpose of a corporation and the means of f ex executing executing these purposes In this case the oil 01 company could not claim aft an exemption from the prin principle princIple principle ciple clam on the ground gound that the permit of the company was wa a contract inviolable inviolable inviolable able against subsequent legislation by bythe bythe bythe the state stae Conditions of the Permit erit The statute of 1809 was a condition upon Te the plaintiff in ln error eror within the power of the state to impose and whatever its limitations were upon the power of contracting Is Ung whatever its is dis discriminations criminations were th became conch condi conditions of the permit and were accepted with tons it The statute was not repealed by bv the act of ot 1895 1893 The only substantial substantial addition made by the latter act was wad tal additon to 10 exclude from its Is provisions or of laborers laborer for the purpose of a standard of or wages Further as to the act of 1895 he said saidI It is either constitutional or unconstitutional I If It is constitutional the I plaintiff in error has no legal cause to tn complain of err it I If I unconstitutional it affect the act of 1899 and that does pet doe we pt have seen sen imposes im 0 0 valid vald condi conditions conditions as these plaintiffs In error and upon ton their violation subjected its permit to todo todo todo business in the state to forfeiture do the Harlan dissented from Justice Harla S |