OCR Text |
Show cerporattone from doing any h"' "'" hilanuii eamiMm pending the Oleeo-lutloa Oleeo-lutloa of the combination by the eocom-pllehment eocom-pllehment of the transfer of etoe. which the mm In It iw required. nd fifth. gov thirty ears lo tarry But the direction of the court. The court uid that decree u right and ahould bo affirmed, except to what la tei d "minor matter. by Chief luetic Whtt. In printed form It contained mora than twenty Jhouaand words. For nearly an hour the chief Justice diamaaia the cma from the henrn. going over moat of the point In the printed opinion, but not once refeirrng 10 It In order to refreeh hi, memory. Before him aal an audience of the moat famous men of the coon try. Senators and representatives left their chambere In the capltol lo Helen to the epoch-making decision de-cision of the court- Moot eager 'to hear were Attorney Oenoral Wicker. hem and Frank B. Kelloeg. epecleJ oouneel forthe f nvemment. who bed conducted the treat Ight agalnet the Standard Oli. By far the greater portion of the opinion opin-ion of the chief luetic we devoted to the Juetlfleatlon of the court In requiring that the "rule of reason" he applied to re,tralnts of trade hefor they wer held to be vlolatlone of the Sherman antitrust anti-trust law. Tho court found this Justin-cation Justin-cation In the common law of the fore-fsthrre fore-fsthrre end In the general law of the country at the time th Sherman antitrust anti-trust law was paseed. Meaning of Word Construed. In short, the court held that the technical tech-nical words of the statute were to be given the meaning which tho word bad in the common law snd In th Isw of th country si the time of th enactment. This meaning of the words, according to the court, called for the exerclee of reason rea-son In determining what restralnte on trede were prohibited. . By the reorganisation of the Standard 011 company of New Jersey, the chief Justice ss Id. there wss prima fecla evidence evi-dence that there was an endeavor to control and monopolise; that further Investigation In-vestigation made thia conclusive presumption pre-sumption of en Intent to restrain trad. ProbaMy the most Important proposition proposi-tion of law Istd down In the opinion was that the words In the statute, "every restraint re-straint of trade." are not to be literally construed but are to be construed In th light of reason. On the point th court held that th position of the government lhat the au-preme au-preme court bed derided that an" qualification quali-fication of thia phase waa precluded by previous decisions of the supreme court was erroneous. " ' " Speaking of thia. error of th government. govern-ment. Chief Justice Whit la hi oplaloa Slid: "This I true because aa the acta which may come under th elaaaee stated la DECISION IS BOOH TO BUSINESS Standard Finding Considered Consid-ered Conservative; Got- eminent Wins Points GIANT MONOPOLY IS ORDERED DISSOLVED Construction Discriminates Between "Good" and "Bad" Trusts. 4)111 I i 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 n I 1 I I I I- chiet poiwts or STANDARD OTCISIOJT The supreme court holdai That the rUandard Oil com- "--) - pgiry "it n monopoly ia eeslraiat d of trad-- That this giant monopoly must be dissolved within six month. . - Corporation whose contract are 'not nnreaaonahly restrict- " iva of competition" are not nffeeted. Other great corporation! wheoe acta air b called into question will be delt with e- J cording to th ajerita of their particular rase. Th court waa nnanimoua a to th main fetur of the vd- risiea. Justic Hsrlaa dissenting only a to the limitation of the application of the Sbermin anti- truet law. He lield that tha supreme court had no right to read into th nti-trust law any- thing thnt permitted " raaaoa- d able raetraint f trad." He 4- maintained that the law did not us the trm "nndu or anren- sonsble" in referring to com- hination aad that, therefore, ' the auprem court had ao right to construe the law a permit- tiag restraints and monopolies that were not "undue and. un- reasonable." 4- . A decision In th tobacco trust case,' which wa expected simultaneously, was ant an- aounced and may b handed T down Mar 2. . . . ,T the first eeotloa aad the restraint of trad to which that section appllea. are not epeclfloally enumerated or defined. It at obvleua that Judgment must In every case be called Into play In order to determine de-termine whether a particular caae la embraced em-braced within the atatutnry elaeeaa, and whether It the act la within such class is Its naturs or sffect caueea it to be a restraint of trade within th Intentmeat of the act. "Th Light of eUoo." - WASHINGTON, May 16. Th Standard Stand-ard oa company of Hew Jersey od it nineteen ubaidlary corporation wer declared by th uprm eourt of th United But to be a conspiracy and combination in ratrint f trad. It also w held to b monopolising intr-stst intr-stst commere In violation of th Rhei-p.aa Rhei-p.aa anti trust law. Th dissolution of in combination was ordered to tak tine within six month Thr eaded th tremendous struggle os the part of the government to put dowa, bv authority f lw. a combination, combi-nation, which, it claimed, wa a men- "To hold to the eor'rary would require re-quire tbe conclusion either that every contract, aot or combination of any kind or nature, whether H operated In restraint re-straint of trede or hot, waa within the statute, and thus the statute would be destructive of all right ae tri contract 1 or agreement to combine In any reeneet whatevar a to auhecta embraced In In-terstste In-terstste trede or commerce; or. If thle conclusion were not reached, then the contention would require It to b held thet aa the statute did not leflne the thing to which It related end excluded resort to the only mean hy whioh th acts of which It relatea could be eaoertalned the light of reason the enforcement of the atatute waa Impossible beeauee ef Its uncertelnty." In eubjectlng to ecrutlny the net snd doings f the Standard Oil company In the long dlstence peat for the purpose of getting eselstanos In discovering intent and purpose. Chief Justice Wait left cutting remark: WhlU'g aUaat. "We think no disinterested mind can survey the period In question without being' Irresistibly drlvon to the conclusion conclu-sion that the very genius for commercial development and organlaatlon which It would eeem was manifested from the ee- ?:lnnlng aoon begot an Intent and purpose o exclude others, which was frequently manifested by acta and dealinga wholly Inconalatent with the theory that they were made with the elngle conception of advancing the development ef business busi-ness power by usual methoda. but which, en the contrary, neceaaarlly Involved tbe Intent to drive othere from the field and to exclude them from their righta to trade and thue accomplish th mastery which wae the end In view' "And. considering the period from the dale of the truet agreements of 1ST and list, up to the time of the expansion of th New Jersey corporation, the gradual extension of the power over the eom I " - J ac to th Industrial aad econemle ad-vancement ad-vancement of tbe entire country. At the name time the court interpreted inter-preted the Bhermaa anti truet law o as to limit ita appliralioa to aet of "uadue"- restraint of trade nd aot very" restraint of trud. It w on this point that the only discordant note waa heard in the court. . Justice Harlan dissented, claiming that eases slrea.lv decided by th court had determined de-termined one for all that the word "uadue" and "unreneonable" or nim ilar words, wen cot in the statute. . He declared that the reasoning of the eourt ia arriving at ita finding wa in ' effect legislation which belonged In every instance t congress and aot to - th eourt. Bustnsa World's Deeir. Ever elnce tbe decree In the ess in th lover court, tbe United State circuit court for tne Eastern district of Missouri, was announced, hope haa been expressed hy the "btislnaaa world" that the law would be modified so aa not lo Interfere with what was designated honeet business. That ee,-tkn of the opinion calling for the uee of the rule of reason In applying ap-plying the law le regarded In many quarter quar-ter as an enseer to the prayers of th t'buetnese world." The opinion of the court waa announced mere in ell which enaued. the decision of the supreme court of Ohio, the tardiness tardi-ness and reluctance In conforming to the commando of that deciaioa, the method first adopted and that which finally culminated in the plen of the New Jereev corporation, all additionally served to make manifest the continued exlatencs of the intent which we have prevloualy Indicated and which among other thlnga Impelled the expanaloa ef th Nsw Jersey Jer-sey corporation. Monopoly Waa Intrdd. "Th exercise of the power which resulted re-sulted from that organlaatlon fortifies the foregoing conduslon, sines ths development de-velopment which came, the eoquleltloa here and there which enaued of every efflclent means by which eempetltie could have been asserted, the slow but resistless methods which followed by which meana of transportation were eh. serbed and brought under control, tbe svstem of marketing which waa adopted by which tha country wae divided Into districts end the trade In each district In oil wae turned ever to a designated corporation within the combination and all others were excluded, all lead the mind up to a eonvlction of a purpoee and intent which we think le on certain as practically to cause th subject not te be wlthla the domain of reasonable contention. con-tention. "The inference that no attempt ta monopolise mo-nopolise could have been Intended, and that no monopoltsettoa resulted from the acta complained of. sloes II is established lhat but a email aerrantaa ef the crude ell produced wss controlled b- tha combination, combina-tion, la unwarranted. Ae aubataatlal power over the crude product waa the Inevitable In-evitable result ef the ahenlnte control whlcb exlated over the refined product, the monopolisation of the one carried with tt the power to control the other, and If ths Inference which this situation situa-tion (uaaeste were developed, whlcb we deem It unnecessary to do. they might well serve to add eddltlanej cogency t th preeumptlea of Intent to mennpoHae which we hava found arise from ths unquestioned un-questioned proof on other subjects. Th Bemdy Discussed. Finally the chief Juatlo came to apply the remedv. He aald that ordinarily where vlolatlone ef the act were found le have bean committed It would eufflo to enjoin further violation. In case, however, where a monopoll-sstlcn monopoll-sstlcn or attempt to monopolise wss ee-tahitehed. ee-tahitehed. ar the exletence of a eemblna-Hon eemblna-Hon is proved, the continuance of which waa a perennial violation of th atatute. further relief wes called for. The lower eeurt. be pointed out had first enjoined the combination, and. ta J Iti- ""'ected lie dleeoluilea. Second, forbidden the New Jersey corporation from exercising sny control by virtue ef Its stork ownership wrer the subsidiary corners I Ions, and enjoined thoae cor-poratloaa cor-poratloaa from recognlalng la any manner man-ner the euthorlty or power of the New Jersey rerporstlen- by virtu of such ownership. Third, enjoined In th sixth section of the decree the subsidiary corporations, cor-porations, after dleeorutton, from doing sny act which could create an Ulexal combination. Fmrrtn. enjoined tbe New Jersey corporation aad all u ubsldlry |