OCR Text |
Show eally held that if a eombinatioa ear ried oa a relentlee war or extermina-tioa extermina-tioa for it success, it is a malefactor. Front whieb it waald follow that if it grew up through proeesae that looked only to it owa property, and did not us ita au peri or etrenfth to crush weaker competitor by wicked, vicious or improper maaa, it is no violator of th law." DECISION IX OrTB SB If SB COsVPOhVATIOX VIOTOaT NEW YORK. Hay 1. Tho who ar willing to venture n gaee a t what th Standard Oil company com-pany would do pointed etrt that it would b a comparatively simpl matter mat-ter to divide the (hare of th subsidiary sub-sidiary eompaniee among th pre-at pre-at holders at th parent eompaay' stock. This pr rata division wuld. of eoar, Isav th control of the beai-asaa beai-asaa a eadutd by th subsidiaries exactly where it elands, through ownership owner-ship by th holding companies. This ia, ia effect, what th Delaware, Lackawanna aV Western Railway eompaay did when the commodities elaus decision compelled it to divorce itself from th coal holdings. Th Lackawanna railroad the formed the Laekawaana Coal company; through which ita eouitie in th coal proper-tie proper-tie wer distributed to th railroad stockholders. Th railroad company itself waa thus completely divorced from the coal basineea, but it stock balder' sanities in the real properties remained ia their kaada through ownership of th stock of ta new ewmpany. Henry Wollman, who waa th New York eounael for the state of Mis-soari Mis-soari in th vaster nit sgainst th Standard Oil company ia 1906, aad baa beea eloe student of th Bher-maa Bher-maa aatl-trust law, expressed hi view laat night of th supreme eourt decision, de-cision, a far aa h was abl to graap it aignileeae front th brif aum-mary aum-mary at hand. H aaid; "t ahould aay that th -ealld combination, if they hav led eleaa eorporate live, have gained a ' moat important victory ia th ease, th supreme su-preme eourt holding that th test aa-'der aa-'der th Sherma law ia whether or aot th purpose and intent ef th an-eessful an-eessful eombinatioa i to blot ont competitors, com-petitors, regard lose ef means employed. "Th contention of th government, as I understand it, ha bee that aay monopoly making a practical monopoly is illegal, rag ardlee f how built np and regardles of ita goad er bad aottv, and regardless of Its conduct con-duct with referwae to competitors. Apparently th sn preme eoart aow holda, ia feet, thnt a vast combination combina-tion is aot a violation of th Bhermaa law oslese it builder deliberately undertook to build it np by crushing competitor through Improper methods. "la other words, the court prsctt- |