'nmwifiiFr. vt !- ";
anr" C"",f"T0'
MARCH X9, 1909
The Commoner.
7
CURR6NT TOPICS
lie
IS
mi-vsl wi liiA'Tv v- -irrTrrv v1-.
THE MISSOURI stato supreme court has over
ruled the motion of the Standard Oil com
pany for a rehearing in the ouster suit recently
uecided against that company. An Associated
Press dispatch says: "The effect of these de
cisions is to expel the Indiana and Ohio com
panies from Missouri and to restore the Waters
Pierce company, sixty per cent of whose stock
is held by the Standard Oil company of New
Jersey, the right to do business within the
state."
REFERRING TO this decision the Associated
Press says: "The decision is considered
a great victory for the Waters-Pierce company
and incidentally for the minority interests of
that Concern who claim to have been making
unavailing efforts to free the company from con
trol by the New Jersey corporation. With this
object in view they declined to approve the
proposition made by the Standard Oil company
of Indiana that that company be allowed to
continue business in the state under a trustee
ship composed of representatives of the court
and the company. This proposition excited the
liveliest interest, in that it would have given
to the state a measure of direct control of a
corporation's affairs had it been adopted by
the court. But it was ignored in the announce
ment by the chief justice, which simply stated
that the motion for a modification of the ouster
decree had been overruled. With the judg
ment of ouster made absolute against the Stand
ard oil company of Indiana and the Republic
Oil company, these concerns must now pay their
fines of $50,000 each and cease business in the
state. The $50,000 fine assessed against the
Waters-Pierce company has been paid. In con
junction with the certified check which the Mis
souri company filed with the clerk of the court,
there was presented a document 'accepting' the
court's original decree, which carried a condi
tional permit to do business. These provisions
include one that the company must be reorgan
ized so as to be free from Standard Oil control.
There is nothing in the document to show that
this had been done, and on this basis the attor
ney general moved that the ouster decree be
made effective at once. When informed of the
court's action today Attorney General Major
said: 'The supreme court's decision simply
means that the Waters-Pierce company will not
be ousted from the state at this time. How
ever, the original judgment of the court will
stand against it, so that if it violates the court's
decree the state can renew its application for
ouster The state asked that the court make
the ouster decree immediately, as we contended
the Waters'-Pierce company had not complied
with th( conditions laid down by the supreme
court inAthe first instance.' "
THE FOLLOWING order was made by the
court in relation to the Waters-Pierce com
pany: "The Waters-Pierce Oil company having
tendered into court the amount of the fine im
posed upon it by the judgment of this court,
and having given satisfactory evidence of Its
purpose to henceforth so conduct Its business
as not to violate the law of this state in regard
to the pools, trusts, and conspiracies, It is
ordered by the court that the clerk of this court
receive the money so tendered and pay the same
In the state treasury, and It is further ordered
that the judgment of this court of date, De
cember 23, 1908, ousting the Waters-Pierce Oil
company- of Its charter and adjudging all its
rights and privileges thereunder forfeited and
annulled, be and the same is hereby suspended
untiJL otherwise ordered by the court, but the
court will retain jurisdiction of the cause for
the purpose. of setting aside and annulling this
order or modifying the same if the court should
hereafter, on motion of the attorney general or
its own motion, become satisfied that the Wa
tersPierce ojl company Is that at time or has
been conducting its business in manner for
bidden by the laws of this state in relation to
pools, trusts and conspira'cies." According to
Attorney General Major, it is likely he will
apply to the supreme court for the appointment
of a commissioner to take and hear evidence as
to whether or not the Waters-Pierce Oil company
and the Standard Oil company have severed their
relations in truth and fact and report the evi
dence back to the court. After this is done, ho
said, it is for the court to say whether or not
the Waters-Pierce Oil company has filed with
the court sufficient evidence to satisfy the court
that It has severed relations with the Standard
Oil cpmpany.
FOLLOWING THE intimation given early in
the proceedings, Federal Judge Anderson,
sitting at Chicago, announced that ho did not
believe that there had been enough proof to
support the allegations in the indictment against
the Standard Oil trust. "As I view the matter
the proof to support these counts absolutely
fails," said the court. "I deem these fatal
errors," ho concluded, after summing up his
reasons for his decision. "It doesn't seem then
that it would be any use for the government to
continue along those lines," said Mr. Wilkerson
for the government. Attorney John S. Miller,
for the Standard Oil companw, Interrupted: "If
the government is abandoning the case I would
like to have a verdict entered," he said. "Is the
court's ruling that there is a staple variance be
tween the allegations and the proof?" asked Mr.
Wilkerson. "Yes," answered Judge Anderson.
Then, turning to the bailiffs, he said: "You may
bring in the jury." When the jury reached its
box Judge Anderson announced that ho had de
cided to end the case and instructed for the ver
dict of not guilty. The decision marks the end
of the famous Ohicago and Alton case in which
Judge Landis imposed a $29,000,000 fine.
FEDERAL JUDGE Smith McPherson, of Red
Oak, Iowa, presiding in the federal court
of Kansas City, Mo has rendered a decision
which declares that Missouri's two-cent railroad
fare and maximum freight rate laws ore con
fiscatory and non-enforceable. An Associated
Press dispatch from Kans. s City says: "As a
result it is believed there will be a quick re
turn in Missouri to three-cent fares, and Frank
Hagerman, for the eighteen companies involved,
asserts today's decision sounds the death knell
of the two-cent rate in every state in the union.
Judge McPherson held that both the commodity
and the passenger laws were confiscatory and
unconstitutional, and Mr. Hagerman declared
that it is not conceivable that if the two-cent
rate is confiscatory in Missouri it can be com
pensatory in other states. The state, on the
other hand, declared emphatically that Mis
souri's fight for lower rates would continue.
Elliott W. Major, the newly elected attorney
general who succeeded Herbert S. Hadley to
that office and was in court today when the
decision was read, said an appeal would be
taken and that the present legislature would
be asked to pass new rate laws that would
stand the test of the courts. Governor Hadley
made a similar statement at Jefferson City."
Judge Smith McPherson, who rendered this de
cision, is presiding judge of the United States
circuit court for the southern district of Iowa.
This is not the first decision distinctly favorable
to corporations that Judge McPherson has ren
dered. Governor Hadley of Missouri says "the
decision is not a correct one." He declares
that the case will be appealed to the United
States supreme court.
THE COURT of appeals for the District of Co
lumbia has modified the opinion rendered
by Justice Gould in the lower court. It will be
remembered that In a recent decision by Judge
Gould, of the supreme court of the district, the
American Federation of Labor and the officers,
Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell, Morrison and others,
were enjoined from conspiring to boycott the
Buck Stove and Range company and from print
ing or publishing or distributing through the
mails or otherwise any copy of the "Federation
ist' or other publication referring to the com
plainant, its business or product in the 'We don't
patronize ' or unfair list. Tho Associated Press
says: "Tho decision, which was by Justico
Robb, modifies and affirms tho ddcreo of Justico
Gould. Tho court holds that tho decree should
bo modified to the extont that it shall only re
strain tho defendants from conspiring or com
bining to boycott tho business of tho Buck
Stove and Rnngo company or threatening or de
claring any boycott or assisting therein and
from printing the numo of tho complainant, Its
business or product In the 'Wo don't patronize
or unfair list of defendants in tho furtherance
of any boycott against tho complainant's busi
ness or product, or interfering either In print
or otherwise with complainant's business as In
'Wo don't patronize' or unfair list in furtherance
of a boycott. Tho court holds that tho defen
dants can not bo restrained from all publications
referring to tho Buck Stove and Range com
pany, but only such as are made in furtherance
of an illegal boycott. In a partially dissenting
opinion, in which he says he Is unable to concur
in the modified decree of Justice Robb, Chief
Justico SheppaTd expressed the opinion that tho
decree should be modified 'so as to restrain tho
acts only by which othor persons havo been or
may bo coerced Into ceasing from business rela
tions with the Buck Stovo and Rnngo company,
but so as not to restrain tho publication of tho
name of that company In tho 'Wo don't patron
ize' column of tho American FederaUonlst, no
matter what tho object of such publication may
bo suspected of or believed to bo.' Justico Van
Orsdel concurred fully in tho conclusion reached
by Justice Robb, but by a different process of
reasoning."
THE OPINION delivered by Justico Robb in
the District of Columbia holds that the de
cree of Judge Gould should bo modified to the
extent that there should be eliminated from tho
decree the restriction of tho labor organization
and the other defendants from "mentioning,
writing or referring" to tho business of tho
Buck Stove and Range company or its customers.
Otherwise tho decree is affirmed. The court
said that the "combination" and boycott In
furtherance thereof and tho publication in the
"We don't patronize" list in' aid of the boycott
is illegal. The court held that the defendants
could not be restrained from all publications
referring to the Buck Stove and Range com
pany, but only to such as are made in further
ance of an Illegal boycott. In a partially dis
senting opinion Chief Justice Sheppard took a
strong hand in upholding the freedom of tho
press. He says that even assuming that the
publication of tho complainant's name in tho
"Wo don't patronize" column of tho Federa
tionist was a step In tho formation of a con
spiracy to coerce independent dealers into re
fusing to have further business relations with
that company, "I can not agree that the publi
cation can bo restrained for that reason. Re
gardless of its character or purpose tho publi
cation is protected from restraint in my opinion
by the first amendment of the constitution which
forbids any law abridging the freedom of tho
press." The chief justice held that "the only
remedy for libelous or otherwise malicious,
wrongful and injurious publications Is by civil
action for damages and criminal prosecution.
There Is no power to restrain tho publication."
The decision does not settle the appeal in the
contempt proceedings In which Messrs. Gompers,
Morrison and Mitchell wero given jail sentences.
This case will be heard later by the appellate
court. The labor leaders claim that If the rea
soning adopted by Chief Justice Sheppard and
Justice Van Orsdel is followed in the decision
of tho contempt proceedings they will be able to
upset the findings of Justice Wright and prevent
serving terms of imprisonment.
The Independent (New York) says: "
In these days when our city dailies are so gen
erally syndicated and neutralized the weeklies
are coming to be of more Importance as the
organs of personal leadership. Mr. Bryan's
Commoner has become a power In the land and
now Senator LaFollette has started a weekly of
similar character, published at Madison.
tf
jfiiifai'i g.jahAwUd4al.iA-A)ilfafcia.,. aJo.u-rtA-t
.. PJll &- .. jf '
