Newspaper Page Text
Decisions of Vital Importance Handed Down by Supreme Court
(Continued From First Page.) lion. 'J'Tils publication, the company contender), constituted a, boycott. Tbc Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, after a bearing, granted a temporary Injunction on January IX, 1907, making It permanent lliret months Inter. The court's order" pro? hibited the defendants from' a! nick? ing the manufacturing company in the publication or other unlawful ways. . Shortly after the order was entered the manufacturing company appeared in court, charging contempt against the three labor officials. They we're found guilty and sentenced. Goinpera to twelve months in Jail, Mitchell 10 nine months, and Morrison to six months. The sentences were appealed to the District Court of Appeal*, with i out avail, und the matter then was laid before the Supreme Court. Dlrrercnecs Settled. Before the Supreme court had oppor- I tuhity to hear th'i testimony. the Bucks Stov.. and Hange Company had settled all Its differences with tho de? fendants, ar.d all that remained for thc rroirt of last resort to do war to rule 111 the contempt feature of the long tfnught litigation. \ Justlee ha mar devoted considerable space <" a technical di-i-u.-'sion of civil ns differentiated from criminal con? tempt, f-i % < I inner only, a lino was permissible, he pointed out. while 'n rrininal contempt Jail sentences could >>e Imposed. Thc case under consid? eration, he saltl, had been brought by n corporation In conjunction with a mil In equity, and a tine, to be paid to the corporation, alone, could he Im? posed. Hud the court, whose Injunc? tion hail been disobeyed, fc)t ag? grieved. It could have brought crimi? nal contempt proceedings in the prem? ises and have Inflicted a Jail sentence. It did not do this, however, and the opinion held that It crreti In Imposing In a civil contempt case a penalty ap? plicable only to litigation Involving criminal contempt. The opinion. In conclusion, reads: "The Judgments of the Court of Ap noals and the Supreme Court of the restrict arc revoked and the case re? manded, with direction that the con? tempt proceedings Instituted by the Buck's Stove and Banco Company bo dismissed, but without prejudice to] the power and rlBht of tho Supremo j Court of the District of Columbia to punish by a proper proceeding of con? tempt, If any. committed against It." Action Unlikely. In view of the fact that the original ?anise of the long drawn out litigation ? has ^eeu adjudicated out of court. It ! . Is considered unlikely that the DIs- i trlct Supreme Court will take advan- : tage of th". Supreme Court's decision to reopen proceedings against the three 1 labor leaders. History of Case. j Th? charges of contempt against President Gompers, Vice-President Mitchell and Secretary Morrison arosi. out of a bitter labor war between or? ganized labor and the Bucks Stove am' Bange Company, of St. Louis, Mo. I The St. Louis concern had come into the Supremo Court of the District ol j Columbia to prevent, by Injunction, thr j American Federation of Ijibor and lit' officials from boycotting Its own pro- j ducts or the business of those who dealt with It. The questions involved anc ; the parties concerned attracted wide- ' spread attention. The company claimed that the federutlon was trying to union lie '.he company's shops The laboi leaders urged that the company was ' "unfair" to labor. Thc head of thc company was J. W. Van Cleave, presi? dent of the National Manufacturers' Association, which had often come Into conflict with the federation. Ho was charged with having been opposed to organized labor and with having sought to put his nickel-plate workers on a ? ten-hour Instead of n nine-hour basi9. Justice Gould, of the District Su-1 preme Court, Issued the Injunction' prayed for by the company. An ap-' peal was taken :o the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, but before i that court could pass upon the validity) of the injunction, the Bucks Stove and Range Company again came into th? District Supreme Court, this time with , charges of contempt against President Gompers. Vice-President Mitchell and Secretary Morrison. These men were accused of having violated the Inj inc tlon decree. Sentenced to Jail. Justice Wright found them guilty and sentenced President Gompers to oik year in Jail, Vice-President Mitchell to nine months, nnd Secretary Morrison tr . six months. An appeal was taken from this sentence, first to the Court of i Appeals, which nfflrmed It, and finally to the Supreme Court of the United States. The alleged violations conslstod of utterances and acts In furtherance of tho boycott. It was charged that Mr : Gompers had rushed out the January' number of the American Federatlonist, j the official organ of the American Fed- ! erat ion of Labor, so as to evade the de? cree, which went Into effect the day after most of the magazines were out of] his hands. This magazine contained the name of the company on the "We Don't . Patronize" or "Unfair" list. It was also! alleged that a number of copies of this magazine were sent out after the de? cree became effective. In dofense, tea-1 tlmony was presented to show that I only thirty-odd copies were mailed to I ? libraries and other similar Institutions.: The complainant claimed that about 100 wore sent out. It was further charged that In Ihe succeeding number of tho Federatlonist, Gompers. Mitchell and Morrison joined . In an appeal to organized labor for funds to carry the Injunction case tc the higher court.. It was contended ' that this appeal was used as a vehicle to ronrJnun the boycott. . CDhe charges stated thnt the appeal referred to an editorial In Ihe same number of the magazine ns setting forth Ihe attitude of those making thc appial. This edl Not a Word From Standard Oil Co. Nevr York, Mny 15.?On thc steps of the Standard Oil building, nt Uli Tlrondtvny, there *"stood a newsboy this afternoon, crying ".Stnnttnril Oil loneal" Inside not an oflleer of the company would speak, YV'llHnm Rockefeller seldom tnlka, and did not hrenk his rule, .lohn n. ArchholiI Is III nt his home In Tnrry tovrn. Mortimer F. Fillet, sollcltor genernl for the company, said ?hat lie would hnve nothing to shy until he had rend the full text of the de? cision, not nvnllnhle here to-nlgbt. _:_:_ ALTON D. I'AHKER, One of the attorney^ who defended lnhor leaden. torlal was attributed to Mr Gompcro. i Goroper?'? Offense. | "Individuals as members of organ-! Ized labor." this publication soid. "will | still exercise the right to buy or notj to buy the Buck's stove and ranges. It Is an exemplification of the saying that 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.'" Another charge was that in the March Kcderatlonlst Mr. Gompera pub- | llshed an editorial. In which it was said: "It should be borne In mind that there Is no law. aye, not even a court decision, compelling union men or their friends of labor to buy a Buck's stove or range. No; not even to buy a l.cewc hat." In a public address In New York' In April, 1908. Mr. Gompers said, it! was charged,: "Of course, In the case! of the Buck's Stove and Kange Com-j pany. If I tell you that the Buck's Stove and Hange Company was still : unfair, when I get back to Washing- ' ton to-morrow or some place where j they say people play checkers with, their noses?well, as I say, I am not, prepared to tell you that these things' are unfair. But there is no law, no court decision, that compels you to, buy them, nor does any law compel you to buy anything without the union label." From another address by Mr. Gom pere In Chicago In May, 190S, was taken language alleged to have been In violation of the Injunction. In addition to the "urgent appeal," In which Mr. Mitchell Joined, he was accused of having acted In contempt by presiding over the United Mine Workers' convention when it adopted a resolution to fine any member who bought a Buck's stove. In addition to the "urgent appeal" charge against Mr. Morrison, he was also accused of having mailed out the magazines objected to. Defended I>y Parker. Distinguished counsel appeared on both sides when the case was argued before the Supreme Court. Promi? nent among these was Judge Alton B. i I'arker. former presidential candidate.! who had been retained lo defend the labor leaders. Uls principal argument was that the Injunction wbb an im? proper Interference with the consti? tutional right of free speech and a free press. He further contended that the Injunction decree was void, at least In parts, and that his clients could not be held under the statutes for violating a void decree. Mitchell Is Pletmed. Philadelphia, Pa.. May 15.?"Well, 1 am glad to hear It." said John Mitch? ell, when he stepped from a Pennsyl? vania train here this afternoon and was told that the Supreme Court had decided in favor of the dofendants. Mr. Mitch? ell was en route for Lancaster, Pa., where he addressed a public meeting j to-night on the. philosophy, purposes j ?and ideiils of '.lie trade union- move- j m cm. t "1 am. of course, pleased." said he | "to learn that the derision has vindi? cated the contention of Messrs. Oom- j jipers. Morrison and myself and that the; decisions of the lower courts have beer. ! reversed. Aside from the satisfaction j 1 of being vindicated and the happiness \ 1 it brings to my family, I am gratified I ' because it justifies tho confidence given to us by n? multitude of citizens. 1 both In and outside of the organized j labor movement." j Judge Who Sentenced Labor Leaders UANIKl, THBW WHIG1IT. RAILROADS MUSI COMPLY WITH ACT (Continued From First Page.) continuous transportatlon or. 8 h IP m e n t with the preceding carrier. The courts had always held that such had been necessary to bring a carrier within the Interstate commerce act of 1S87. The United States District Court for Northern Alabama went even a step further. H held that the United States was entitled to a penalty from the Southern Hallway Company for an al? leged violation or the aafety appliance law In a case where a shipment orig? inating and ending within the State of Alabama, was carried in a car not properly equipped. The court held that | this was a violation of the law because j the car was used sometimes for inter? state commerce, and, therefore, was an instrumentality of Interstate commerce. ALL VACCINATED Not Until Then In Vessel Permitted to j Enter Port. > Philadelphia, May IB.?Sixty pas? sengers were landed at the govern- j aienl quarantine station at Reedy ; Island, Delaware, fifty miles below this city, to-day. from the American llnet Merlon. Liverpool and Queenstown for Philadelphia, because of the discovery tt a suspicious case of sickness In the steerage. Smallpox was suspected by the government physicians, and the alck passenger and fifty-nine others ?rho had come In contact with him /cere placed on shore for "observa? tion." but later the doctors satisfied themselves that the patient, a child, os merely suffering from chlckcnpox. After every one on board the Meriod : aad been vaccinated the big liner was j ?llowed to come to port. The quarantine physicians at the I entrance to this port are keeping a| close watch for smallpox among steer? age passengers of Incoming vessels, and the Morlod Is the second vessel this week to be held up and suspected cases taken off._ Forecast! For Virginia?General I y fair, without much rhnnge in temper nlurc, Tuesday nnd Wednesday; light, variable wJuda, mostly west. For North Carolina?Unsettled Tues? day, Wednesday fair; moderate east ?uintlH. CONDITIONS YESTERDAY. Monday midnight temporature.. 68 I S A. M. temperature . 561 Humidity . 78 Wind, direction .N. E. Wind, velocity . i Weather .C?ear Ii noon temperature . 76 S P. M. temperature . Maximum temporature up to 6 P. M. Minimum temperature up to 6 P. M. 6* ! Mean temperature . Gft Normal temperature . 67 i Deficiency In temperature . 3; Deficiency In temporature since ? March 1 . Accum, deficiency In temperature since January 1 . Deficiency In rainfall since March Accum. deficiency In rainfall since January 1 . 2.6SJ CONDITIONS IN IMPORTANT CITIES (At 8 P. M. Eastern Standard Time..) Place. Thor. 11. . Weather. AUlene . 80 S2 Cloudy Asheville 70 76 Clear Augusta . 7ft St Clear AUtinta . 7S SO Cloudy Atlantic City..,. 54 :'.S Clear Hosten . 60 ' 72 Cloudy llulTalo . 64 66 Cloudy Charleston ..... 70 76 Hain Chicago . 70 86 Cloudy Calgary . 60 61 P. cloudy I Denver . 76 Mi Clear Diiluth . 12 51 Hain Galvfston . 7S 82 Cloar Huron . S2 S6 Clear Havre . 52 ?I Cloudy Jacksonville - 72 78 p. cloudy Kansas City. 86 !'0 P. cloudy KnoxviHe . 80 S4 Clear Louisville . 84 AO V. cloudy Memphis . :. 84 88 Cloar Mobile .....78 88 Clear Montreal . 60 66 Rain Norfolk . 60 74 Clear North Platte_ 82 86 P. cloudy* Plttsburg . 82 S6 Clear Raleigh . 76 80 P. cloudy | Savannah . 68 74 Cloudy j Sun Francisco... 50 .18 Cloudy : Spokane . 60 62 Cloudy St. Paul . 68 72 Cloudy Tampa . 68 84 P. cloudy I Washington - 70 7S p. cloudy Wilmington - GS 76 Clear Wylhcvllle 6S 7S Clear MINIATURE ALMANAC. May 16, 1011. Sun rises . 5:02' i Sun sets.,..,. 7:11* STANDARD QU LOSES IIS C?SE (Continued I' rotn l'irst l'nge.j Uni toil St^T?s-(it thc time of Um adopT tlon, Iii? contentions of the parties concerning tho itet an<l the scope and effect of the decisions of the Supremo Court, tho application of the statute lo the facts, and lastly the remedy, tlul Two Subjects. In striving to get nt the meaning of the two sections of the law, he said that the solo subject with which tho first section dealt wns ?'restraint ut trade." and that the attempt to monop? olize, and monopolize alone, was the subject of the second section. Tho Chief Justice said that In getting at the meaning of these words he would be guided by the principle that where words ure employed In n statute, which at thc time hud a well known mean? ing In common law or In ill? law of this country; thjfy were presumed to huve been used In this sense unless the content conveys to the contrary. Thc Chief Justice considered the con? tention of the parties as to the mean? ing of the statute. Ilo said In sub? stance that the propositions of the government wero reducible lo the claim that the language of tho statute embraced "every contract, combina? tion, etc.. In restraint of trade." and left no room for the exercise of Judg? ment, but simply Imposed the plain duly of applying Us prohibitions to every case within its liberal language The error of the government on this point. Chief Justice White said, was In assuming that the decisions of the court had decided In accordance with Its contentions. 'This is true." said the Chief Jus? tice, "because, ns the nets which may come under the classes stated in the first section and the restraint of trade to which that section applies, are not specifically enumerated or dellned, it Is obvious that judgment must in every case be called Into play in order to de? termine what particular act is em? braced within the statutory classes, and whether. If the act is within such classes, its naturo or effect causes, It to he a restraint of trade within tho Intcndnient of the act. Chief Justice 'White touched upon the phase of the case which formed the basis for Justice Marian's dissent? ing opinion. It was that the opinion of the Supreme Court In the cases of thc United fitstes vs. Freight Associa? tion, and United States vb. Joint TrafTlc Association, Included the right to reason thus In Interpreting the statute. Chlof Justice White declared that the general language 'of these opinions had been subsequently ex? plained and held not to justify the broad significance attributed to them Takes Up the Facts. The Chief Justice next took up the facts and tho application of tha statute to them. As a matter or fact the court found that tho result of enlarging the capital stock of the Standard Oil Company, of New Jersey, and the acquisition by that coiftpany of the shares .of fhe stock of tho other corporations In exchange for Its cer? tificates, gave to thc corporation an enlarged and moro perfect sway, and not to keep the trade and commerce In control of Its products. Tho effects of this. Chief Justice White Bald, the lower court held, was to destroy "tho potentiality of competition." which otherwise would have existed to such on extent as to be a combination or conspiracy In restraint of trade in violation of the first section of the act and also be an attempt to monopolize and a monopolization and bring about a perennial violation of the second section. "We see no cause to doubt the cor? rectness of these conclusions," said the Chief Justice, "considering the subject from every aspect, that is; both in view of the facts established by thc record and the necessary operation and effect of the law as we have con? strued It upon the Inference deduclble from tho focts. flitting Hemark In .scrutinizing the acts and doings of tho Standard Oil In the past foi the purposo or getting assistance In discovering Intent and purpose. Chief Justice Wlilte left a cutting remark: "We think no disinterested mind can survey tho period in question without being constantly arriving at the conclusion that the very genius of tho development and organization which it would seem was manifested from the beginning, soon begot an Intent and purpose to exclude others, which was frequently manifested by acts and dealings wholly Inconsistent with the theory that they were made with tho single object of advancing the development of business power by unusual methods, but which, on the contrary, necessarily Involved the in? tent to drive others from the field and to exclude thoni from their right to trade and thus accomplish the mas? tery, which was the end In view. And. considering the period from the date of the trust agreements of 1ST!) and 1882 up to the time, of tho expansion of the New Jersey corporation, the rrradunl extension of tho power over the commerce In oil which ensued, the decision of the Supremo Court of Ohio, the tardiness or relnctnnco In conforming lo the commands of that decision. Die method first adopted and that which finally culminated In the. plan of the New Jersey corporation, nil additionally serve to make mani? fest thc continued existence of the Intent which we have previously In dlcnted, and which, nmong other things. Impelled tho expansion of Ihe New Jersey corporntlon." Finally, the Chief Justice enme to apply the remedy. Further ltellef Xeedert. He snld that ordinarily where vio? lations of thc net were found lo have been committed It would suffice to en Join further violations. In a case, however, where a monopolization or attempt to monopolize was established or the existence of a combination Is proven, the continuance of which wns a porennial violation of the statute, fur? ther rollet was called for. The lower court, he pointed out. had, first, enjoined tho combination nnd In effect directed its dissolution; second, forbidden the New Jersey corporation from exercising any control by virtue of Its stock ownership of Ihe subsid? iary corporations nnd enjoined those corporations from recognizing In any manner the authority or power of the New Jersey corporation by virtue of such ownership; third, enjoined In the sixth section of the decree the sub? sidiary corporations, after the dissolu? tion, from doing any act which could create a like Illegal combination; fourth, enjoined tho New Jersey cor? poration and ?II Ihe subsidiary cor? porations from doing business In In? terstate coinmnroo pending tho dissolu? tion of tho combination hy tho accom? plishment of tho transfer of stockr vhlch the decree in its essence re- 1 ATTORNEY-GENERAL GEORGE W. WICKER SRAM. Washington. May 15.?Commenting upon the Standard Oil decision to? night. Attorney-General Wlckersham said that the court unanimously af? firmed the decree rendered by the Cir? cuit Court In favor of the government In every particular, save that it gives the defendants six months Instead of thirty days' time in which to comply with tho decree. "Substantially every proposition contended for by thot government in this case Is affirmed by the Supreme Court," said tho Attorney-General.. In a statement issued by the department. quired, und flfUi, gave thirty days to carry out ihn directions' of the court. The court said this decree was right and should he affirmed, except as to what It termed "minor matters." One of these was the extension of the time In which the decree should bo put Into effect from one month to six months. The other modification was more Im? portant, and had to do with the sixth section of the decree, which forbade the formation by the subsidiary cor? porations or their stockholders of like combinations. I Compelling Obedience. "We construe the sixth paragraph of the decree." said the Chief Justice, "not as depriving the stockholder or corporation of the right to live under the law of the land, hut as compelling obedience, to that law." He said it did not follow because an Illegal restrnlnt of trade or an attempt to monopolize or a monopolization re? sulted from the combination of the corporations In tho New Jersey corpo? ration; that a like restraint or attempt to monopolize or monopolization would necessarily arise from agreements be? tween ono or moro of the subsidiary corporations after the transfer of the stock by the New Jersey corporation. "For illustration," said he, "take the pipe lines. By the effect of tho trans? fer of the stock the pipe lines would come under the control of various cor? porations Instead of being subjected to a uniform control. If various cor? porations owning tho lines determined In the public Interests to so combine as to inako a continuous lino, such agreement or combination would not be repugnant to the act. and yot It might be restrained by the decree. As another example, take the Union Tank Line Company, one of the subsidiary corporatkuis, the owner practically of all the tank cars In use by the com? bination. If no possibility existed of agreements for the distribution of these cars among the subsidiary cor? porations, the most serious idctrlment to the public interest might result." History of i.Iflgntinn. The suit which called forth to-day's decision was Instituted In 1906 In tlx Uniteil States Circuit Court for the Rastern District of .Missouri. It was brought In the name of the United States. The Immcdlnte object was tr dissolve the Standard Oil Company, ol New Jersey. From the very beginning,' the bus? iness and the legal worlds recognized Mint tho suit put the Sherman anti? trust law to the most severe lest to which It had been subjected. The law had been on tho statute book stuco 1830, and had been tho basis of some eighteen suits finally pnssed upon by tho Supreme Court of the United State*). That tho law was constitutional was accepted as settled by those decisions, but simple as the words of the statulo seemed, there was an absence of unan? imity in regard to Its Interpretation. With that situation confronting tho government and the. defendants, the suit wns begun with the general belief that the entiro business world would feel the effect of the outcome of the gigantic struggle. Two Seetlons Violated. The government claimed that two sections of the Sherman anti-trust lan had boon violated. The first section reads as follows: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or con? spiracy, In restraint of trade or com? merce among the several Statos, bi with foreign nations, Is lioreby de? clared to be illegal." Tho second section roads: "Every person (which subsequently was explained In the statute to Include corporations) who shall monopolize, 01 attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or per? sons to monopollzo any part of trridf Or commerce among the several States, Or with forolgn nations, shall be deem? ed guilty of a misdemeanor." Tho Standard Oil Company, of New Jersey, some seventy subsidiary corpo? rations, John D. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller, Henry M. Plaglcr .lienry H. Rogers, John D. Archbold, Oliver II. Payno and Charles M. Pratt, all de? fendants In the suit, denied the charges, Months were spent in gathering evidence. Tho general line of attack as shown by evidence presented by the government ?vas this: [t claimed that about 1870 tho Rockefellers and l-'Iagler conceived tho Idea of controlling the petroleum trndo of the country, and a little later entered Into a conspiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne and Pratt to gain a control of the oil bus? iness. To carry out this allowed con? spiracy, it was claimed they tlrst "pooled" their Interests, then put them Into tho hands of trustoes or "trusts," and finally when the trust of ISSH wns declared "void" In a decision by the j Ohio Supreme Court In a proceeding | Founder of Standard Otl Company >}OH.\ 11. ItnCKIOKELM^U. against tho Standard Oil Company, of Ohio, reorganized tho Stundard Oll . Company, of New Jeraoy, to take over their interests and to ?eeurc monopoly. Evidence of rebating, of price cutting and of the organization of secret con-, corns to pose as Independents was elicited to show that IJie Standard was seeking by unfair means to restrain trade anil to procure a monopoly. Ucnlcn Conspiracy C'bnrge. "Staisdard Oil" Introduced e-'ldence to show that there had never been such a conspiracy, rt sought to provo that the Ohl? Supreme Court did not hold the trust, agreement of 1SS2 void, but merely required the Standard Oil Com? pany, of Ohio to withdraw from tha "trust." Evidence was produced to show that ; rebating had been the order of the day among all commercial concerns: that price cutting and secret concerns were not the rule and worn used ns legitimate instruments of competition. The Circuit Court held that the re? organization of the Standard Oil Com? pany of New Jersey In IS99 was not only a violation of the first section of the act. which referred to restraints of trade, but also of the second sec? tion, which npplled to monopolizing. Tho Standard Oil had argued that there could bo no additional restraint as a result of the reorganization be? cause the Standard OH Company of i New Jersey was owned by a common body of owncrF In exactly the .same proportion that all the subsidiary companies taken over by this new or? ganization had been held by these same common owners for years past, Tho court held otherwise, and said that the combination in a single cor? poration or person, by an exchange of stock, of the power of many stock? holders holding the same proportion, respectively, of the majority of the stock of each of several corporations engaged In commerce In the same articles among the States, or with for? eign nations, to restrict competition^ therein, rendered the power thus vest? ed In the corporation or person greater, more easily exercised, more durable and more effective than that previously hold by the stockholders. In these effects, the court found a re? straint on commerco Court Evolve* Plan. The court then proceedod to evolvo a plan to remedy tho situation. It entered a decroe enjoining the Stand? ard Oil Company of New Jersey from exercising any control, by reason o? Its stock ownership, over the sub? sidiary companies. Furthermore, it enjoined these subsidiary companies from paying any dividends to tho Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. It put n provision in the decree to enjoin any possible evasion of tho decree by the organization of a simi? lar combination or of tho conveyance of the property to one of the defen? dants. Unless the defendants should sever the relations and ccaso the com? bination within thirty days, they were to be enjoined from engaging In inter? state commerce until they did cease the combination. From the Circuit Court the case was brought to the Supreme Court ,->f the United States. The record laid >efort the higher tribunal probably wns the largest ever prepared In an American case. The petition, pleadings, testi? mony, opinions and decree constituted twenty-two large Vollmes, or morn than D00 pnges each. The enso was first argu-d before the Supreme Court In March'. 1910, but 11 was restored to tho docket for reargn ment. The case was heard the second tlmo In January, 1911, the latter tlma before a full bench. Noted attorneys appeared on either side. For the gov? ernment. Attorney-General Wicker sham and Frank B. Kellogg, special assistant to the Attorney-General, ad? dresses' the court. For the Standard OH, thorc appealed John G. .Ichnson, of Philadelphia; John G. Mllbiifn. of New York, nnd D. T. Watson, of .Mtts burg. Not Natural Growth. In his address to tho court. Mr. Kel? logg, who took all the testimony In the case on behalf of the govern pent, said that the Standard Oil organization was not a natural growth, hut was horn and reared in frnud nnd oppression, and "hangs over the commerce of this country to-day like a threatening cloud." , Tho Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, he told Hie court, controlled from SS to 07 per cent, of the oil busi? ness of tho country, with n financial power beyond that possessed by any other combination ever known. The combination, h0 added, was "made ef? fective and powerful by reason o? preferential rates and rebates In trans? portation, the greatest ever known to have, been made and by unfair and ! brutal methods of competition, which In and of. themselves between mer? chants and comer-grocery men would, not be. dangerous, hut in the hands of :i coin hi nation of tills size and of this power, are the most dangerous Instru? ments to independent 'dealers. manu-i facturcrs ami men eiignglng in enter? prise known In commerce." The other side of the contest was summarized by John O. Johnson, in the closing argument In the disc. He declared that the country did not suf? fer by the mere largeness of the cor? poration, but profited. For (he alleged sins that the corporation had com? mitted, he argued, there existed an adei|uate remedy at law. and there? fore It was mil necessary for equity to step In to dissolve the corporation. Ha denied that rebates were being ac? cepted by the corporation now. or that It was culling prices or organizing secret concerns, and characterized the. government's references to them in tho past iis necessary to "give the proper color and raise the proper amount of Indignation" In the case. Ho declared that the Standard Oil or? ganization was the result of orderly growth. "Let the channels of commerco bn open for all who may desire to enter," said he. in closing, "wheilic-' with ocean steamer or with dugout, with Rockefeller wealth or with naught but their brains and tholr hands, unfet? tered by tholr own improper restraints, and imlnterforcd with by the abuses of others, and nil will have been dvUife that Is wise. Beyond that lies the an? tagonism of irresistible economic hp,? cesslty: and danger of fllsaster, tho length nnd the breadth of which no mini can foretell."' Complete Victory for the Government Washington, 1>. C, Slay IS.?"It la n complete victory for the govern? ment," said Prank n. Kellogg, who, as sPeelnl counsel for the k?>i em? inent, assisted In the prnsrcullnu of the Sliindsnt Of 1 cnsr, to-nlgbt. "I Imve. rend the opinion, hastily, of course, hut have seen enough to know Hint the government Is suni tallied by the court on every point contended' for."