AMERICAN TRUSTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 107, 28 June 1911, Page 3

AMERICAN TRUSTS.

STANDARD OIL COMPANY DISSOLVE]). AMERICAN GOVERNMENT’S VICTORY, Sim Francisco, May 17. The. unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court ordering that the Standard Oil Company, universally known as the Oil Trust, bo dissolved within six months, constitutes a notable victory for the Federal Government. It is, in fact, th'e most important event thus far recorded in the light against the-giant business combines begun by Theodore Roosevelt nine years ago. The Oil Trust will be a thing of the past at the end of six months. Tire Court’s decision insists that the seventy constituent companies of which the huge '•amidnation is formed; shall, in effect, become’competing entities'. • The method by which the Trust•• has operated so : iis -fp- control jpn«nacd!ly: pen vent, of the oil busmtes of the ’United States’ has been as • follows s--Tlk» Standard Oil Company; of 'Now Jersey, known as Luc parent company. and iTliu capital stock iii which is-owned by ■a little group of multi-millionaires, of which the Rockefellers form the nucleus, possesses a controlling interest of stoc'k in the seventy subsidiary companies. Thus the latter have been subject to the policies enforced by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; which, in effect,* means that the Rockefellers and their associates have been masters of the entire situation. By the decision of the Supreme Court, the stock held by the Now Jersey Company in the subsidiary corporations must be returned to the latter, at a valnaton. ‘ By that one operaton the whole giant fabric will crumble to atoms. The dissolution of the trust, it is hoped by the Government, will be followed by a general reduction in the retail price of oil. If this is not a result of the decision, it is difficult to perceive wherein the ;public will benefit by the long and expensive law suit. The case has been pending iii the Courts four years, and the record of the testimony is as big as a moderate-sized library. While the decision of the Supreme Court is unquestionable a win for the policy of “trust busting,’’ there is one portion of. the ruling that gives comfort to. “big business.” 'I be Sherman anti-trust law on its face prohibits all acts in restraint of interstate trade. The Court finds, however. that acts that are not “unduly or unreasonably restrictive of competition,” are not unlawful. Chief Justice White, in an ordl explanation accompanying-' the' written decision, stated that the “rule of reason,” as ho called it, as applied to acts in restraint of trade, was justified by the common law. and the general law of Aineriea at the time the Sherman Act. was passed. The Supreme ’Court therefore modified the decree of the. lower Court so that there need not be an absolute cessation 1 of interstate commerce in petroleum and its products by such vast agencies as are embraced in the combination, a result which might arise from that portion of the decree which enjoined carrying on of Inter-State commerce, not only Iby the New Jersey'corpora-, lion, but I by all subsidiary Companies under tbb dissolution by, transfer of the stocks in accordance with the decree.”. I ; A belief has grown up and gained a considerable number of adherents in the last : fCw years that a combine is not necessarily bad because it is big. The business, world bus freely expressed the hdpq/§mce the'Standard Oil case was submitted to the Supreme, Court that that tribunal in deciding it ' would, .tbs Sherman antitrust law by .interpretation so as not to hamptlr Jionest business on a large scale. The ~Supremo Court tis thought to have responded to that , hope by the section of. its decision insisting upon the use or, the “rule of reason” in determining what restraints, on t rade were prohibited. Onlvroee member of fc.ho Bench, .lustier .Harlan, dissented from Ibis dictum. He said be found nowhere;-in the Sherman Act tl:t. ’ vrords “undue,” or .“unreason-