Show HAS TO STOP Oil Cornli e Canllot Transj act Business Contrary I to t State Act MUST OBEY THE LAW I United States Supreme Court Sustains Texas Law 1 I LOWER COURT IS UPHELD Justice UcKonna Hands Down an Opinion in the Case of tho Waters Pierco Oil Company Involving its EIght to Do Business in the Lone Star State Contrary to the Provisions Provi-sions of tho State AntiTrust Laws of 1889 and 1895It was Charged That tho Company Was a Member of the Stnndnrd Oil Trust as Organized Or-ganized in 1882 The Decisions of the State Court in tho Matter are Affirmed Opinion Based Upon Proposition Pro-position Submitted to Jury in Original Ori-ginal Trial Washington March 191n the United States Supreme court today an opinion was handed down In the case of the Waters Pierce Oil company Involving Its right to do business In the State of I Texas contrary to the provisions of the State antitrust laws of 1889 and 1S93 It was charged among other things that the Waters Pierce company was a member of the Standard OH I trust as organized In 1SS2 and various other allegations were made but the court did not enter upon a general discussion dis-cussion of trusts contenting Itself with a discussion of tlte Texas law as applicable ap-plicable to the cusp Jhe opinion sustained the decisions I of the State court to the extent of af ruling them and was thus opposed to the contentions of the oil company but It did this upon the ground that the State laws Imposed a condition which he I oil company had accepted and hence was without ground of complaint com-plaint The opinion was handed down by Justice McKennn who reviewing thc case said that the Waters Pierce company com-pany was u private corporation Incorporated Incor-porated In Missouri which had begun business In the State of Texas In 18SO I The suit grew out of the charge that the oil company violated the statutes I of the State of 1SSD and 1SD3 against I Illegal combinations In restrait of trade thereby Incurring a forfeiture of Its permit to do business In tho State The trial was ilrat held In the District Dis-trict court of Travis county in which the verdict was against the oil company com-pany On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State this decision was affirmed and it was brought to this court on a writ of error The basis of the action was the Standard Oil trust organized in 1S82 and It was owned that Its Intention was to control and monopolize the petroleum Industry of the United Stairs hi restriction of trade dividing the markets of the United SUites Into valous subdivisions awarding Texas to the Waters Pierce I company Tho decision of today wan I based upon the propositions which were submitted to the jury in the original trial I Justice McKcnna said The transactions trans-actions of local commerce which wero held by the State courts to bo vIolatloiiH of the statute provided In contracts with certain merchants In which Uio plaintiff In orror required them to buy oil exclusively from It and from no other source or buy exclusively of the complainant In error and not to sell to uny person handling competing pile or to buy exclusively from plaintiff In error er-ror and to sell at a price llxed by It The statutes he continued must be considered In reference to theao contracts con-tracts In any other aspect they are not subject to our review on this record except the nower of the State court to restrict their regulation to local commerce com-merce upon which a contention Is rained He said the propositions rnlsed by the State courts had boen broadly discussed dis-cussed und many considerations had been presented relating to grievances which do not enter Into the case nu affecting the oil company The court felt constrained to confine itself to this particular grievance Stating this grievance he said It was that the statutes of Texas limit its 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 discrimi-nations between persons nnd classes of persons On this latter point the court did not feel called upon to pass The I oil company is 1 a foreign corporation and Its right of contracting In tho State of Texas was the only subject of In i nulry On this point the opinion hold thai tho State probcrlhcs the purposes of a corporation and the means of I execu ling those purposes I I In this case the oil company could i not claim an exemption from the principle prin-ciple on the ground that the permit of the company was a contract Inviolable against subsequent legislation by the I State The statute of 1S89 was a condl l Ilion I I-lion upon the plaintiff In error within the power of the Hate to Impose find I i whatever UH limitations orcfupon the power of rontnicllng whali > voi > Ha dls 1 criminations wort they became concH tlons of the permit and WtIl ncroptcd j with It The statute was not repealed by the art of 1SU5 The < only substanr tlul addition made by Uti liUirr net wi1uf iu exclude from its provisions organlaa tloiis of laborers for tie purpose of maintaining a standard of 1R15fS 1 1 Further < te to the I ct of ices he eald It Is either constitutional or unconsll I tutlonal If It is 1 constitutional the plaIntiff In t rror hali no legal cause to complain of It If unconstitutional It dots not affcct tho net of 1S39 and that its wo have seen Imposes valid conditions condi-tions upon these plaintiffs In error and their violation subjected the permit to do business In tho State to forfeiture Justice Ilarlan dissented from the opinion C |