Generalizing these considerations, the situation is this: From this it follows, since that rule and the result of the test as to direct or indirect, in their ultimate aspect, come to one and the same thing, that the difference between the two is therefore only that which obtains between things which do not differ at all.
It is undoubted that, in the opinion in each case, general language was made use of which, when separated from its context, would justify the conclusion that it was decided that reason could not be resorted to for the purpose of determining whether the acts complained of were within the statute.
The text of the first and second sections of the act originally considered, and its meaning in the light of the common law and the law of this country at the time of its adoption.
The scope and effect of this freedom to trade and contract is clearly shown by the decision in Mogul Steamship Co. That as to necessaries of life, the freedom of the individual to deal was restricted where the nature and character of the dealing was such as to engender the presumption of intent to bring about at least one of the injuries which it was deemed would result from monopoly, that is, an undue enhancement of price.
That, in view of the many new forms of contracts and combinations which were being evolved from existing economic conditions, it was deemed essential by an all-embracing enumeration to make sure that no form of contract or combination by which an undue restraint of Page U. Arguments by Petitioner Frank Kellogg, attorney The argument was made that Rockefeller had obtained his monopoly through under the table deals, threats, and bribery with railroad companies in order to receive special rates that would give his companies and an unsurmountable advantage over his competitors in the regions.
But, it is said, persuasive as these views may be, they may not be here applied, because the previous decisions of this court have given to the statute a meaning which expressly excludes the construction which must result from the reasoning stated. The overruling of the exceptions taken to so much of the bill as counted upon facts occurring prior to the passage of the Anti-Trust Act -- whatever may be the view as an original question of the duty to restrict the controversy to a much narrower area than that propounded by the bill -- we think by no possibility in the present stage of the case can the action of the court be treated as prejudicial error justifying reversal.
All agreed that the national government could not, by legislation, regulate the domestic trade carried on wholly within the several states; for power to regulate such trade remained with, because never surrendered by, the states.
It was alleged that shortly after this decision, seemingly for the purpose of complying therewith, voluntary proceedings were had apparently to dissolve the trust, but that these proceedings were a subterfuge and a sham, because they simply amounted to a transfer of the stock held by the trust in 64 of the companies which it controlled to some of the remaining 20 companies, it having controlled before the decree 84 in all, thereby, while seemingly in part giving up its dominion, yet in reality preserving the same by means of the control of the companies as to which it had retained complete authority.
While it is true that the decision of the House of Lords in the case in question was announced shortly after the passage of the Anti-Trust Act, it serves reflexly to show the exact state of the law in England at the time the Antitrust statute was enacted.
Flagler to join as a partner in the venture. But this again, as we have seen, simply followed the line of development of the law of England. They conclusively show, however, that the main cause which led to the legislation was the thought that it was required by the economic condition of the times, that is, the vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of corporations and individuals, the enormous development of corporate organization, the facility for combination which such organizations afforded, the fact that the facility was being used, and that combinations known as trusts were being multiplied, and the widespread impression that their power had been and would be exerted to oppress individuals and injure the public generally.
Congress therefore took up the matter and gave the whole subject the fullest consideration.
Inventor Robert Chesebrough derived the product from petroleum residue, and the spun-off company Chesebrough Manufacturing Company was purchased by Unilever in In other words, the prohibited act of engrossing, because of its inevitable accomplishment of one of the evils deemed to be engendered by monopoly, came to be referred to as being a monopoly or constituting an attempt to monopolize.
Rockefeller had left the company, yet the value of his stock doubled as a result of the split. This resulted in the breakup of Standard Oil into separate companies, all in competition with one another, effectively lowering prices.
It was held that they were. The first is true because the construction which we now give the statute does not in the slightest degree conflict with a single previous case decided concerning the Anti-Trust Law aside from the contention as to the Freight Association and Joint Traffic cases, and because every one of those cases applied the rule of reason for the purpose of determining whether the subject before the court was within the statute.
The main issue before the Court was whether it was within the power of the Congress to prevent one company from acquiring numerous others through means that might have been considered legal in common law, but still posed a significant constraint on competition by mere virtue of their size and market power, as implied by the Antitrust Act.
Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by Page U.
Bythrough elimination of competitors, mergers with other firms, and use of favourable railroad rebates, it controlled the refining of 90 to 95 percent of all oil produced in the United States.May 15, · On May 15,the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of Standard Oil Company, ruling it was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Ohio businessman John D. Rockefeller entered the oil industry in the s and inand founded Standard Oil with some other business partners. InJohn D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil was broken up into 34 pieces by the Supreme Court. Today, the remnants form the base of the U.S.
oil industry. The Evolution of Standard Oil As a result, an antitrust case was filed against the company in under the Sherman Antitrust Act, arguing that the company used tactics such.
Antitrust and the Oil Monopoly: The Standard Oil Cases, (Contributions in Legal Studies) The Standard Oil Cases, (Contributions in Legal Studies) by Bruce Bringhurst (Author) › Visit Amazon's Bruce Bringhurst Page. Find all the books, read about the author, and more. May 15, · In Standard Oil Co.
of New Jersey v. United States, U.S. 1 () the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil guilty of entering into contracts in restraint of trade and monopolizing the petroleum industry through a long convoluted series of anticompetitive actions.
The court's remedy was to affirm a lower.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the Standard Oil case (), the A. attorney general sped up the pace of antitrust actions. B. Sherman Antitrust Act was declared unconstitutional. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, U.S. 1 (),  was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil Co.
of New Jersey guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive mint-body.com: Harlan.Download