STANDARD OIL TRUST.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1129, 17 May 1911, Page 5

STANDARD OIL TRUST.

ITS DISSOLUTION ORDERED. By Telcirarh-I'ress Association-Copyrieh', New York, May 15. Tho Standard Oil Tru=t has lost its appeal to the United States Supreme Court, after a tivo years' battle. The Trust has been declared a combination in restraint of trade. ROCKEFELLERS AND THE LAW. JUDGMENTS HAVE LITTLE RESULT. ..M"^ 1 . fie Attorney-General of the united States—himself a great corporation lawyer—calls "one of the most important decisions over rendered in this eountrv," waa handed down at tho end of 1909 'by tho United States Circuit Court for tao district of Missouri. Writing at the time, Current Literature" said:—"lt was a decision that the Standard Oil Company has been and is doing business in defiance law and its officers ara committing a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment. If the unanimous decision of the Circuit Court-counted one of the strongest in tne country-stands, not onlv will tho great Standard Oil Company presumably bo forced to disintegrate into seventy or more independent concerns, but tho United Stales Steel Corporation and practically all the rest of tho holding companies, big and little, that are doing an interstate business and are popularly known as trusts, will be subject to the same process of disintegration. That, at least, seems to bo the expressed opinion of Henry XV. Taft, ex-Attorncv-General Griggs, William M. Ivins and Senator Depew, all corporation lawyers of note, and of John D. Archbold. vice-president of the Standard Oil Company and its executive head. 'The Judges,' remarks the New York 'World,' 'have handed down a decision that amounts to an industrial Magna Charta.'"

Dissolution Ordered in 1892. "But there are sceptics on this point. If there is but little love for the Standard Oil Company there is a beautiful faith in its ability to find a way out of legal predicaments. Back in 1892, the Standard Oil Trust was ordered to dissolve by the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it forind a way to continue its existence in a now form—that of a holding company, the form in which it now exists. A few years ago, as a result of Commissioner Garfield's investigation, indictments were brought against the company by various juries containing 8193 counts. One of these resulted in the fine of dollnis imposed by Judge Landis and later set aside by Judge Urosseup. The company has continued through all this period paying annual dividends ranging from 3C per cent, in 10l)i to'« per cent, in 1900. When the recent sweeping decision was brought, there was but a slight slump in its steel;. Nor, for that matter, was there any considerable slump in the stock of the United Slates Steel corporation and other companies organised on the fame basis a* the Standard Oil. , Evidently Wall Street takes much tho same view as that taken by the Philadelphia 'Lodger.' It points to tho fact that although the Northern Securities Company was ordered to dissolve several years ago, 'the, system remains the fame, conducied by the same agencies and. guided by the same purposes." It predicts a similar-result in tho case of the Standard Oil if the, present decision is sustained bv tho Court of last resort. Says the 'Le'dt-cr':—

."' In reality the Standard Oil Company will not actually sacrifice its integrity. Instead, by co-operation and mutual understanding, the various sufciriiaiy concerns which it absorbed anil into which it will be resolved, will continue exactly as in tho past, animated by tho same purposes, conducted for the same interests, and proceeding by the same methods. It will exist in atomic instead of consolidated form. That will bo the sole difference, and it is a difference without a distinction. The dissolution will be nominal only and without practical significance.'" Big Businesses, and the Law. Tho San Fraucisco "Bulletin" is still more sceptical. It not only expects the Standard Oil Company to find a way out and to maintain its present commercial position,' but it adds:— • ''It is one of tho curiosities of life in America that public opinion does not ex' pect 'big business' to obey the law and does not expect the law. or the courts to be able effectually to restrain 'big- business.' Public opinion seems to look upon the law, in its relation to 'big business,' much as the ordinary worldly and sinful Christian looks upon the Sermon on tho Mount, rather as the statement of an ideal t.ban as a precept to be obeyed in the ordinary affairs of life. 'Big business' has gained in this country a position similar to that once held in Europe by the feudal aristocracy." '

One feature of the recent decision is emphasised by the Now York "Press" as both now- and significant, and that is "the fixing of the' guilt for the Standard Oil conspiracy upon the seven individuals who organised it.". The defendants referred to are the two Rockefellers, Rosters, Flagler, Archbokl, Payne, and Pratt.

Goal Necessary. The one effectivo course "The Press" thinks, is here made clear:—"Decisions against tho Standard Oil Trust mean nothing when they are not. tho decisions of juries on criminal trials, to lie followed by sentencing the individual criminals to jail. The Sherman Act needs no interpretation. What is required is enforcement, and the President of tho United States is charged with its enforcement. No law can be enforced unless its penalties ara applied, and tho penally for violating the criminal clause of tho Sherman Act. must bo. v applied by Mr. Taft and his attorney-general, or the prosecution of ■Sugar Trust and Standard Oil and all other monopolies continues to be tho same, farce that it has been -aver since the Sherman Act was passed."