OCR Interpretation


The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, May 19, 1911, Image 6

Image and text provided by University of South Carolina; Columbia, SC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063758/1911-05-19/ed-1/seq-6/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for SIX

Dissolution of
Oil Comi
Death Blow Administered bj
en Six Months to Winc
Complete
Wasihington, May 15.-The supreme
Qort holds:
That the Standard Oil Company is
z mtonopoly in restraint of trade.
'That this corporation must be dis
oivd within six months.
Corporations whose contracts are
'"'not unrasonable" are not affected.
1:,er great corporations whose acts
may be called into question will be
dealt with according to the merits or
their particular cases.
President Taft and cabinet will con
sider immediately the entire trust sit
iation and the advisability of pressing
for a federal incorporation act.
A decision in the Tobacco Trust
case. which was expected simultan
-eously, was not announced today and
nay be handed down on May 29.
Washington, May 15.-The Standard
Oil company. of New Jersey, and its
nineteen subsidiary corporations were
.,declared today. by the supreme court
of the United States,-to be a conspir
acy and combination in restraint of
trade. It also was held to be mono
Pol7-ing interstate commerce in viola
tion of the Sherman anti-trust law.
The dissolution of the combinati.n
was ordered to take place within six
mon-hs.
Thus ended the tremendous struggle
of years on the part of ve govern
ment to put down by authority of law
a combination which it claimed was
a menace to the industrial and econo
mic advancement of the entire coun
try.
Limits Application of Law.
At the same time the court inter
preted the Sherman anti-trust law so
as to limit its application to acts of
"undue" restraint of trade and not
every restraint of trade." It was on
this point that the only discordant
zote was heard in the court. Justice
Barlan dissented, claiming that cases
already decided by the court had de
.termied once for all that the word
"'undue" or "unreasonable" or similar
words were not in the statute. He
declared that the reasoning of the
yourt in arriving at its findings was
-f Effect legislation which belongs in
'every instance to congress and not to
~1e court.
Ever since the decree in th.is case in
the lower court. the United States
circuit court for the Eastern district
of Missouri, was announced, hope has
!oeen expressed by the business world
Ba the law would be modified so as
niot to interfere with what was de
'signated honest business.
Announced by Chief Justice.
The opinion of the court was an
-nounced by Chief Justice White. For
taearly an hour the chief justice dis
cussed the case from the bench. Be
fore hinm sat a distinguished audience
-the "est fa.mo'us men of the coun
try. Senators and representatives
* eft their respective chambers in the
'zapitol to listen to the epoch-making
.iecsion of the court. Most eager
among them was Attorney General
Wickersham and Frank B. Kellogg,
tho had conducted the great fight
-ig.inst Standard Oil.
None of the '>rilliant array of zoun
e el 'fr the corporations or individual
- defendants was present in the court
.lu-ring the reading of the opinion. To
~y, as on previous decision days for
*months,' rival brokeers' agents, with
Smessengers in line .to the various tele
:phione and telegraph instruments,
wre at hand, but to their dismay the
announcement of the decision was not
begun until an hour after the closing
-of the stock markets.
Tiobacco Decision Withheld.
'Many ex:pected that the decision of
the case against the American Tobac
.co company would be handed down
immediately after the decision in the
*andard Oil case. This was not d'nne.
Th decision is now expected en May
*-3. The opinion of the court today
wast~onstrued to mean that the tobac
-co -case, like every other case in which
Wetrints of trade are alleged, must
stte -the zest of "reasonableness."
t? har the greater portion of the
opinion. ocf the chief justice was de
voted to the justification of the court
in -requiring that the "rule of reason"
?oe applied to restraints of trade be
fore they were held to be violations of
the Sherman anti-trust law. The court
- found this justification in the com.mon
3.aw of the forefathers and in the gen
-*ral lavi of the country, at thle time
;he Sherman anti-4rust law was pass
'ah. En short. the court held that the
*teeinnical words of the statute were to
be given the meaning which those
words had in common law and the
law of the country at the time of the
* naam.enL This meaning or thle
Standard
5ine is Ordered
Land's Highest Court-Giv
F Up- Goverment Wins
Victory.
words, according to the court, called
for the exercise of reason it. deter
mining what restraints of trade were
prohibited.
From Beginning of Action.
Chief Justice White, in his opinion,
first reviewed the preliminary pro
ceedings in the case in the circuit
court of the United States for the
Eastern District of Missouri. He re
stated the essential points in the bill
o the government asking for the dis
solution of the Standard Oil company.
He dismissed the objection to the jur
isdiction of this court in a few words,
by holding that it was not well found
ed. He then came to the arguments,
saying that out of the "jungle" of law
and facts, both sides were agreed only
in one thing, and that was that the
determination of the controversy rest
e,I upon the proper construe.tion and
application of the first and second
sections of the. anti-trust acts. The
views of the two sides as to the law
the chief justice said, were as wide
apart as the poles. The same, he said,
was true as to the facts.
"Thus. on the one hand, with per
tinacity -and minuteness of analysis."
said the chief justice, "it is nsisted
that the facts established that the as
sailed combination took its birth in
a purpose to unlawfully acquiru
wealth by oppressing the public and
hat its entire career examplifies the
carrying out of such wrongful m.as
ures, that the course of the company
is strewn with wrecks resulting frori
the att'tude o the present def2wd
ant.
Declared Enduring Menace.
"It is asserted that the existence or
the principal corporate defndant, .hel
Standard Oil company, of New Jerse.,
with its vast accumulation of propercy,
trecause 'of its potency for harm and
the dangerous example which its con
teued existence affords, is an op;en.
an1d enduring menace to all freedo n
e" trade.
'On the other hand, in a' power:..
analysis of the facts, it is insisted th-i.t F
the development of the vast busiass
which the defendants control w'as out
the result of lawful compe+itiv'e mneas
res, sustained by a keen insight into
commercial situations and ability of
the highest order."
In this state of affairs the chief jus
tice sized up single points of concord,
namely. the application of the two sec
tions of the Sherman anti -t'rust law.
as the ini'tial basis of an exa anination
of the contention. The rezt of his~
opinion divided itself into a consid?ra
tion of the meaning of the Sherman
anti-trust law in the light of the com
mon law and the law of the United
States at the time of its adoption, the1'
contentions of the parties concernmng so
the act and the scope and effect of thel mi
decisons of the supreme court, the ap- wi
plication of the statute to the facts ed
and lastly the -remedy.
In striving to get at the meaning of
the two sections of the law, he said w
the sole subject with which the first' co
section dealt was "restraint of trade' or
and that the "attempt to monopolize1 or
and monopolization af action" was p
the subject of the second section. Tine tra
chief justice said the meaning of these St
words would guide his opinion by the b
manner in which the words were em
ployed. Je
History of the Case. p
The suit which called forth today's lie
decision was instituted in 1906 in the Hi
.nited States circuit court for the 01
Eastern District of Missouri. It was al:
brought in the name of the United ch
States. The immediate object was to
dissolve the Standard Oil company, of
New Jersey. d
From the very beginning the busi- sh
ness and the legal worlds recognized gc
that the suit put the Sherman anti- at
trust law to the most severe test to le
which it had been subjected. The law t
had ben on the statue book since 1890Iar
and had been the basis of some 1 i
suits finally passed upon by the su- a
preme court of the United States. b
That th.e law was constitutional was cc
accepted as settled by these decisions,"
but simple as the words of the statute in
seemed, there was an absence of un- a
animity in regard to its interpretation. d
With that situation confronting the 0
government and the defendants, the a
suit was begun with the general belief O
that the entire business world would c
feel the effect of the outcome of the t
gigantic struggle. .0]
Government's Charges. et
The government claimed that two r
sections of the Sherman anti-trust laww
had been violated. The first section 1w
reads as follows: s
"Every contract, combination in the p
form of trust or otfreawiee, or con-j
"Watch
"HIGH PRICED Q
The Ford quality I
be made attractively low,
quality has sold all Fords
The Ford Featu
The Ford Motor, the
and all the important eler
We can prove this by shc
The Ford Cal
If roads are poor, if hills are st
then the FORDIMODEL T show
car, abundance of power, splendic
tire trouble, because of high clea
iRnabout, $600.
F. 0. B. Factory, Equi
The Newberry
Nevvberry, S. C.
iacy, in restraint of trade or corn- to show that there
ce among the several Stastes, or a conspiracy. Iti
t foreign nations, is hereby declar- the Ohio supreme
to be illegal." the trust agreeme
The second section reads: merely required ti
"very person (which subsequently pany, of Ohio, to
sexplained in the statute to include "trust." Evidenca
rorations) who shall monopolize, show ithat rebatin
ttempt to monopolize or combine der of the day an
onspire with any other person or concerns, that pri<
~ons. to monopolize, any part of c ,neerns vere no
e or commerce among the several used as legitima1
es, or with foreign nations, shall ccmnpetition.
eemed guilty of a misdemeanor." The circuit cour
Te Standard Oil company, of New ganization of the
rey, some seventy subsidiary cor- pany, of New Jers
tions, John D. Rockefeller, Wil- only a violation o1
L Rockefeller, :Henry M. Flagler, the act, which re
ry H. Rogers, John D. Archbold, of trade, but also
ier H. Payne and Charles H. Pratt, tion, which applit
Iefendants in the suit, denied the The Standard Oil
ares- there could be no
Alleged Origin of Trust. as a result of the
onths were spent in gathering evi- cause the Standa
ne. The general line of attack as New Jersey. was
on by evidence presented by the mon body of ow:
enment was this: It claimed that 'one proportion
it 1870 the Rockefellers and Flag- diary companies
coneeived the idea of controlling new organization
epetroleum trade of the country, -thse same comm
da little later entbred into a con-pat
pacy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne pa rt Hl
dPratt to gain a control of the oil T~cuthl
sness. To carry out tils alleged Tecuthl
npiracy, i-t was claimed, they lirst that the combi.nat
yled" their interests, then put them porn t-ion or persoi
othe hands of trustees or "trusts," stock, of the po'
dfinally when the trust of 1882 was jholders holding t
hared "void" in a decision 'by the respectively of t
>ii supreme court in a proceed'ing1 stock of each of
ainst the Standard Oil company, of engaged in comm<
>, reorganized the Standard Oil tieles among the
.pany, of New Jersey, to take over eign nations. -to I
r interests and to secure mon- there-in, rendered1
oy. Evidence of rebating, of price- ed in the corporal
ting 'and of the organization of sec- er. more easily e
concerns to pose as independents able and more efft
selicited to show that the Stanard viously held by t
s heking by unfair means to re.. these effects the
ain trade and to procure a mono- straint on coxmmej
r. The cou rt then
"Sandr O nrm o du-eds eridenc a plan to remned
the Ford (
I~ N A LOW PRICED CA&
VALITY IN A LOW
kas never been sacrifice
Quality sold the first I
since that time.
res Are Original,
Ford Ignition System,
nents of the Ford car are
owing you- in detail the c
- is Built for
eep, if land is sandy, if rocks abc
's ITS REAL SUPERIORITY.
I design, simplicity of mechanisa
ance, this car has become imm
Torpedo, $645.
pment $80 Extra. We
Machine Shop
had never been such__________
~ough~t to prove that
court did not holdi
t of 1882 void, butj
e Standard Oil corn
withdraw from the
Swas produced to1
g had been the or
ing all commercial
~e-cutting and secret
the rule and were'
e instruments of*
t held that the reor
Standard Oil comn
ey, in 1899, was not,
the first section of.
ferred to restraints
of the second sec
d to monopolizing.
had argued that
additional restraint
reorgandzation, be-I
rOil company, of JOH DFE
ciers in exactly the
that all the subsi- Adapted for
aken over by this TWO levers,
had seen held by adjustments.
mowners for years you Can buy I
(ontrary View.A
otherwise and said
ion in a single cor -___________
. by ,an exchange of
er of many stock
e same proportionseneeadcrenjii
e majority of the dr i opn,o
:everal corporations fo xecsr n ot
rce in the same ar- o t tc wesi,o
States. or with for-sdarcopne. ur
~estrict competition enondtseubiar
Lhe power thus vest- rmpynaydiin
ion or person great-SanrdOlcpnyo
xercised. more dur- jI u r iini h
ective than that pre-J onaypsil vso
e stockholders. In byter:nzaiuoa
ourt rfound a re- b~aino ftecne
proceeded to. evolve zthdfcdatshl
y h stato. t B .ltin And cesth
JO By
PRICED CAR"
d that the price might
'ord Cars in 1893 and
Not Imitations
the Ford Transmission
distinctive Ford ideas.
:nstruction of the car.
Hard Work
und, if wet weather is plenty,
Because of light weight of the
, low fuel consumption, little
ensely popular.
rouin Car, $700~
have Cars in Stock.
and Garage.'
Telephone 60.
EIVERSE CULTIVATOR.
almost any kind of cultivating.
one on each side, allows many
AUl Steel. No wood. Cheapest
or durability and service. Sold by
i RIFFPIN & CO.
g the Stan- wnthin 30 dlays. they were to be eg
ew Jersey, joined fro.n engaging in interstate
>. by reason commerce unti they did cease L.he
er the sub' combination.
ceopes In U. S. Supreme Court.
ds to te Fromi the. circuit court the case was
New Jersey. brought to the supreme court of the
ecree to en- United States. The record laid 'e
the dearee fore the high3: tr.ibunal probably was
imilar coin- the largest'ever prepared in an Amer-.
ance of ztte ioan case. The petition, pleadings,
ndants. Utn- testimony, opinions and decree cons
. sever the' tuted twenty-two large volumes of
combinat>n more than 500 pages each.

xml | txt