OCR Interpretation

The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, May 16, 1911, Image 3

Image and text provided by Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85038615/1911-05-16/ed-1/seq-3/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 3

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
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.
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
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."
Judge Who Sentenced
Labor Leaders
(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.
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
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
(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
May 16, 1011.
Sun rises . 5:02'
i Sun sets.,..,. 7:11*
(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
"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
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
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
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
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
"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."

xml | txt