sidered a part of this return as fully as if set forth herein, commenting upon the objections of section 6 of said decree, said: "So far as the owners of the stock of the subsidiary corporations and the corporations themselves were concerned after the stock had been transferred, section 6 of the decree enjoined them from in any way conspiring or combining to violate the act or to monopolize or attempt to monopolize in virtue of their ownership of the stock transferred to them, and prohibited all agreements between the subsidiary corporations or other stockholders in the future, tending to produce or bring about further violations of the act. *** We so think, since we construe the sixth paragraph of the decree not as depriving the stockholders or the corporations after the dissolution of the combination, of the power to make normal and lawful contracts or agreements, but as restraining them from, by any device whatever, recreating, directly or indirectly, the illegal combination which the decree dissolved. In other words, we construe the sixth paragraph of the decree not as depriving the stockholders or corporations of the right to live under the law of the land, but as compelling obedience to that law. As therefore, the sixth paragraph as thus construed is not amenable of the criticism directed against it and cannot produce the harmful results which the arguments suggest, it was obviously right.' These respondents say the said decree has not been complied with in any substantial respect; that the individual defendants in that case, and the corporations which they control through their ownership and control of the majority of the shares of stock of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, at the time said decree was entered, is now owned and controlled by a combination between said individual defendants mentioned in said decree, their associates, confederates and allies, through the concerted action in their ownership of the stock of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and all of the defendant companies named in said decree.1 That said combination continues as it did as found in the first paragraph or section of the decree, since the year 1890, when the said defendants had entered into and were carrying out a combination or conspiracy in pursuance whereof they caused the capital stock of the Standard Oil Company to be increased to one hundred million 1 Italics are the Editor's. dollars, and assumed control of all subsidiary companies through the ownership of stock by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; that instead of controlling all the subsidiary companies mentioned in said decree by and through the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the stockholders of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey have resumed the ownership of the stock of said subsidiary companies, through a pretended distribution thereof from the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and are continuing to control all of the subsidiary companies through their ownership of the majority shares of the said subsidiary companies, including the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, just as they had prior to the organization of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, as described in section 1 of said decree, hereinbefore set forth.1 And that the present action of relators, supported by the shares of stock formerly owned by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, is an effort upon the part of the defendants in the aforesaid cause to assume control of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company and draw it into a continuation of the conspiracy enjoined by that decree and compel it, through and by an understanding and agreement and concerted action, by and between the holders of the majority of the shares of stock of said subsidiary companies, to continue to violate the Federal law and the said decree of the Federal Court. That the shares of stock set forth in the alternative writ herein are the same shares of stock formerly held by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and are now being attempted to be voted to aid the furtherance of the conspiracy enjoined by the decree aforesaid; that the said individual defendants named in said decree in association with other confederates and allies have combined and confederated in manner and form as aforesaid, viz, through the majority ownership of stock in all the subsidiary companies mentioned in said decree, to control in defiance of said decree, said subsidiary corporations, in combination and restraint of trade and for the purpose of attaining the monopoly enjoined in said decree; that said pretended dissolution is a farce, a disguise and a pretext, and has made no change whatsoever in the relation of said companies or their direction, management and control.1 Wherefore, respondent says that the jurisdiction and process of this Court should not be given to aid the relators and their confederates in a disguised attempt to evade the laws of the United States and the decrees hereinbefore referred to. 1 Italics are the Editor's. XII These respondents further making return to the said alternative writ of mandamus say that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding or grant the peremptory writ herein, for that the relators have another summary remedy, provided by the statutes of this State, to contest their election as directors of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. And respondents in further return deny each and every allegation in the alternative writ not hereinbefore admitted or denied. Wherefore, respondents say that the votes and proxies offered to be voted by the said Taylor and Van Beuren and the votes offered to be voted by relators were not lawful votes at said election, and were properly rejected by these respondents; and respondents, having made full return to said alternative writ of mandamus, pray to be hence discharged and to recover their costs herein most wrongfully expended. Boyle & Priest, Judson, Green and Henry, Attorneys for Respondents. John D. Johnson, Of Counsel. CHAPTER XVI PROPOSED METHODS OF DEALING WITH THE TRUST PROBLEM In this concluding chapter, there have been brought together the views of certain gentlemen as to the methods of dealing with the Trusts in the United States. Competition has its advocates as well as combination. The exhibits have been selected with the idea of showing that there are two distinct lines of thought in regard to the Trusts; one looking to Government supervision, the other to competition as an ultimate solution of the problem. It has of course been possible to include the ideas of only a comparatively few men, but the editor believes that the views here expressed are fairly representative.-Ed. Much is said of the repeal of this statute and of constructive legislation intended to accomplish the purpose and blaze a clear path for honest merchants and business men to follow. It may be that such a plan will be evolved, but I submit that the discussions which have been brought out in recent days by the fear of the continued execution of the antitrust law have produced nothing but glittering generalities and have offered no line of distinction or rule of action as definite and as clear as that which the Supreme Court itself lays down in enforcing the statute. SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION NEEDED-NOT REPEAL OR AMENDMENT. I see no objection-and indeed I can see decided advantagesin the enactment of a law which shall describe and denounce methods of competition which are unfair and are badges of the unlawful purpose denounced in the antitrust law. The attempt and purpose to suppress a competitor by underselling him at a price so 1 Message to Congress of December 5, 1911. Congressional Record, 62d Cong. 2d Sess. Vol. 48, pp. 25-26. unprofitable as to drive him out of business, or the making of exclusive contracts with customers under which they are required to give up association with other manufacturers, and numerous kindred methods for stifling competition and effecting monopoly, should be described with sufficient accuracy in a criminal statute on the one hand to enable the Government to shorten its task by prosecuting single misdemeanors instead of an entire conspiracy, and, on the other hand, to serve the purpose of pointing out more in detail to the business community what must be avoided. FEDERAL INCORPORATION RECOMMENDED. In a special message to Congress on January 7, 1910, I ventured to point out the disturbance to business that would probably attend the dissolution of these offending trusts. I said: But such an investigation and possible prosecution of corporations whose prosperity or destruction affects the comfort not only of stockholders but of millions of wage earners, employees, and associated tradesmen must necessarily tend to disturb the confidence of the business community, to dry up the now flowing sources of capital from its places of hoarding, and produce a halt in our present prosperity that will cause suffering and strained circumstances among the innocent many for the faults of the guilty few. The question which I wish in this message to bring clearly to the consideration and discussion of Congress is whether, in order to avoid such a possible business danger, something cannot be done by which these business combinations may be offered a means, without great financial disturbance, of changing the character, organization, and extent of their business into one within the lines of the law, under Federal control and supervision, securing compliance with the antitrust statute. Generally, in the industrial combinations called "trusts” the principal business is the sale of goods in many States and in foreign markets; in other words, the interstate and foreign business far exceeds the business done in any one State. This fact will justify the Federal Government in granting a Federal charter to such a combination to make and sell in interstate and foreign commerce the products of useful manufacture under such limitations as will secure a compliance with the antitrust law. It is possible so to frame a statute that while it offers protection to a Federal company against harmful, vexatious, and unnecessary invasion by the States, it shall subject it to reasonable taxation and control by the States with respect to its purely local business. * * * Corporations organized under this act should be prohibited from acquiring and holding stock in other corporations (except for special reasons, upon approval by the proper Federal authority), thus avoiding the creation under national auspices of the holding company with subordinate corporations in different States, which has been such an effective agency in the creation of the great trusts and monopolies. If the prohibition of the antitrust act against combinations in restraint of trade is to be effectively enforced, it is essential that the National Government shall provide for the creation of national corporations to carry on a legitimate business throughout the United States. The conflicting laws of the different |