University of South Carolina Libraries
Cbf oulattbiiLi.ii atti ^oatljuu. Published \\ ? <11I i > iiimI >uiur<luy. ?-BY ? OS1LLN PUBL'SHING COMPANY srM i i.u. s. c. i 1111 $l.iU per annum?in advance. IdvcriLsemcut One Square that inserti n.Il.ou Every subsequent Insertion.;>0 Contracts for three months, or longer will be m tili- at n duod iat?.\ All commuiti'AtloiM which sub gnrve private Interests v. .1! i>e charged lor M id\t n i>-no n's. Obituaries and tributes of rssp? ct will be charged for. The sumter Watchman was found ? i In 1850 and the True Southron in iM The WatiNniin and Sou&iron I >w has th* combined circulation and illu? nee cf both of the old papers. ? ad i* manifestly the be?t adverfslng medium in Sumter. Governor Blease takes the humane a4 the only proper view oi the l'eni entlary tubercu'osls situation. It .alls for immediate action and if he ? loses the hosiery mill and has a gen tral cleaning out of the Penitentiary, ie will have the support and en orsement of a very large majority of he i .'ople of the State regardless of hell,v. they are political friends or sag With Roosevelt's protlge. Stimson. 'unnlng the war department the dan? ger of war with Mexico is greatly ufuinented. A war would afford opportunity for Roosevelt to fake he country once again with his spe< acular yellow Journal methods and ^et into the lime light and to a man of lui notorh?t> peeking disposition a srith Mi v? would be a cheap price to pay for his rescue from political bae'jrity an I I ^significance, s a *e Jones. ?he Union county nits pois ner has not >et I., . n granted the xpected. pardon, but it was almost ton sauch to expect, even of Governor Please, that he would set aside the erdtct of the co^rt in the face of the eports of Judge Memminger und >o icltor Seaae. who- strongly und un Uulvocally disapproved of the pt tlon for a parden. ? ? ? The Charleston S. A. L. baseball '.earn Is going after the world's record eld by the Manning State League seen fet th ,-ast flv?- ?r -i- \< BgJPtail .g that ree >rd s II Im n i V>b|u? f it than winning s p-nnanl Its Farmers who are growing von, on ? the WlPlamsiin plan have had the as- | elstance of nature In the stunting proems thus far. ? ? ? The suggestion that the water works pumping station b ? > |a< trifled fa entirely feasible, is, the Sumter | Lighting Clmpani waats more bust sees and will make he city a reason able rate osj the power assdad to eperate the pump-. The drnyage bin on the coai eosunssaed at the pumpittg station Is a dl^er-n-e be? tween the actual COSt Of SOW ST and the cut at the pumping station, un? der prsgaSJI conditions, that affords n opportunity t<? the Sumter Light- J ig Company to furnish electric pow ?r for the operation of the pumps at . profit to |tself and at a saving to the By. It would pay the city to make . contract for electric power, even if t cost as much as is now paid for oal. exclusive of drayage. and saved lothing at all on the other operating xpen*es. although It ought to be pos Ible to cut down the operating ex? panses and repair bill 'materially by he substitution of electric power for ?team. It would cost a consid rablc amount, of course, to install dectrte pumps, but we believe the dif? ference in cost of operation would more than pay for the new machin? ery in n f. w \ ? irs. St h i rttl'HTKKs TO <u:<. \m/j: M < alb I I' i **al in .'as at the Olli? c of the < nil|||J Mi|? i inleiMb lit of I in h at lou. Tie trustees ,,f f. varlo - ho ds In the county are io no<t Saturday at the ssnee ad th.mn i ipvrtnten* dent of ednantlog to organ a < trus? tee .i^-o 1.1 ? 1 ui t r Sum', i i cutty. This I?* \ nio\e in the Uns of progress that h, i|lH; taken up in many of the ? untie* of I be Stale and Sumter Cksanty, ? i to be left behind, Is now to hi ? .i a lt.i n ' 'a i n n of it- trustees, Th. lot that the association was to hs oesjnnssed became known some time ago ajad many ad the trust.. - in various parts of the county have tn> preased tin ii }nb rest In Its] move? ment ir.d their hope that It Would be successful. Sumter county nofj hni I rery Ihe I' H- h. is' association In the tounty. a rural school Improvement association and h is lately celebrated Its first fo b' day. wbb h was a most Successful event Th- or.: iniz.it h.ii among the trust, es has now been tak? en up and It Is hoped that It will he as successful and do as mm h good as the organisations among the r. ,. p , , of the county have d >ne. QRGAT TRUtiT ? ?UTLAWBD, INI) \im> (?II. MONOPOLY <?li DEBUU i?i^sm.\ i n i\\ m - PRKMfc ( Ol UT, < Mel Justice While i tenders Momcii? tons Decision in Ixmf Continued ( ase tgain*l R( ckcfcller*! Trusl? id.mi on Trust Held to i?< in \ .< latloa ??r Btwrnaan <\ntl?Tru*i i i end \n Illegal <'ombin itlon hi R ?traint of Truth. Washington, Ma) 16,?The stand? ard (?ii Company of New Jersey and Us i!? tube!diary corporation! wer?j declared today by 111* - oupreme court ol the United Btatei to be a Con? spiracy and combination in restraint of trade, it also was held t<? i>e mon? opolising Interstate commerce in vio? lation of tho Bherman anti-trust law, The dissolution of the combination was ordered to take plane within six months. Thus ends tho tremendous struggle of yean on the part of the govern? ment to put down by authority of law a sembtnattoi] which it claimed wai a menace to the industrial and eco? nomic advancement of tha entire country. At the sam.' time tho court inter? preted the Sh-rman anti-trust law so M to limit its application to acts ol 'undue" restraint of trade, and "not every rsstrainl of trade.*1 it was on this point that tho only discordant note was heard In the court. Justier Marian dissented, claiming that caa s already decided by the court had de tannlned once far all thai the world "uniiiK1" at Unreasonable" or similar WOffda wa re not In the statute. 11c declared that the reasoning of the oonii in arriving at Its Undings was in effect legislation wtveh belonged in every tastance t<? congress and not to tho courts. ?very since tin- decree In tins c ase in the lower court, tha United Btatei cir? cuit court for the Baetern district ol Missouri, was announced, hope has been expressed by the "business world" that the law would be modi tied so as not to Interiors with what - designated as "honest business." Tpffilghl that Section Of the opinion calling f<?r the use <>f the "rule of rea? son" in applying the law as regarded in many quarters as in answer to the privets of the "business world." The opinion of the court was an Chief* Justice White, in . It COntalaed neue than *. For nearly an hour < ice discussed the case Isasa m\am\ aSjBCh, golm; over most of t! v points in the printed opinion, but hot once referring to it in order to r< fresh his memory, liefere him sat a distinguished audience of the most famOUl mon of the Country. Senators and r? presentsttvee left thalr reapeo tive ohamben In the capltol to llaten to the ? porh-making decision of the ourt. Most eater to> hear were At? torney General Wickeraham and Frank B. Kellogg, epeclal counsel of the government, who had conducted tin- great tight against the standard (?ii. Mono of the brilliant array <?f ooun m 1 for the corporations or individual dsfendanti uas present in the court during the reading of the opinion. Today, as.on previOUl decision da>> for months past, rival brokerage ag nf- with messengers in line to the various telephone and telegraph in? struments throughout the capitol, wer?- on hand) but to their dismay tho announcement of the decision was pot begun until an hour after the ( losing of the stock markets. Many expected that the decision >f the court in the dissolution suit Sgalnsl ths tobacco corporations would be handed down Immediately after tie- decision in tin- Standard Oil ease. This was no| done, however, but the decision U expected on May the laat decision day of the court until in xt ( tetoher, . The opinion of the court today was construed to mean thai the tobacco case, like every other rase In which restraint! of trade arc alleged, must be subjected to tie- |ie\\ |esl of t ea sonaMenes* of the restraint, as laid down in the Stand ird ( >il declsli n. I* far tin- greatesl portion of the opinion of the chief justice wua de? voted on the Justlflcatlpn ??f the court In requiring thai the "rule of reason" ? ?? applied to restraints of trad< be? fore ?luv were held to be violation.; of tie- Sherman anti-trust law, Th court found this Justification In tie- common law of the forefathers and in the Kenerul law of the country it the time tie- Sheiium anti-trust law was passed, In ahort the court held thai the technical worda ??r the statute were to be given tb ? meaning which those worda bad in common law ami in the law of the country ;>t the time of the enactment, This meaning of the words, according lo the court, called for the exercise of reason In determining what restraints of trade were prohibited, Chief Justice White in hll opinion first reviewed the preliminary pro? eeedtnga in the case in the circuit court of the rnit ern district of > the essential point* In the bill of the I i ernment, aakliU) for the dissolution < r the Btandurd Oil, and the answer iiueatlonlng the jurisdiction of the ? eouri and denying the statements of the government, He dismissed the object! ri to the jurisdiction In a few wards, 1?) holding that it was not well ? founded. He then came to the argu I menta as to the law and 11*? facts in ? the ra.-?- aaying thai oul of the "jun \ v. e" of law and facts both sides were l agreed onlj In one thing, and that was i that the determination of the contro? versy rested upon the proper construc? tion and application of tin lirst and second ???? ctlona of the anti-trust acts. I The views of the two sides as to the law, the chief justice said, were as wide spart as the poles, The same, ho said, was true as to the facti. "Thus, on the one hand, with re? lentless pertinacity and minuteness of analysis/' said the chief justice, "it is insisted that! the facti eitabllshed that the assailed combination took its birth In a purpose to unlawfully acquire wraith by oppressing the public and destroying the just rights of others, and that Its entire career exemplifies an inexorable carrying out of such wrongful intents, since, it is asserted, the pathway of the combination from the beginning of the time <>f the tiling of the t>iii Is marked with constant probfi of wrong Influence upon the public and Is strewn with the wrecks , resulting from crushing out without regard to law the indiv idual rights of i > there. 1 I * "it Ii asserted that the existence of ie princ ipal corporate defendant, the | Standard OH Company of New Jersey, ? it Its vast accumulation of prop tjerty, because of Ita potency for harm ? land the dangerous example which Its continued existence affords, Is an open | , and enduring menace to all freedom i of trade and a byword and reproach I to all modern economic methods. "On the otb.r band, in a powerful analysis of the facts, it is Insisted that i they demonstrate that the origin and i development af the v ast business j which the defendant's control was but I i the result of lawful competitive meth- I 1 Oda guided by economic genius of the highest order, sustained by courage, by a keen insight Into the commer? cial situation resulting in the acquisi? tion of great wealth, hut at the same time serving to stimulate an Increas? ed production, to widely extend the distribution of the products of pe? troleum at a cost largely below thai which previously prevailed," In this state Of affairs, the chief Justice seised upon the single point ? f concord, namely, tha application of the two sections of the Sherman anti-trust law, as the Initial basis ol an extension of the contention. The rest of ins opinion div ided lts< if into ? c< nslderatton of the meaning of the Sherman anti-trust ?law in the light of the common law and the law of the United states at the time of Its adoption, the contentions of the par tlei concerning the act and the scope and effect of the decisions of the su? preme court, the application 10 the fact and lastly the remedy. in striving to get at the meaning of the two aectloni of the law, he said the sole subject with which the first section dealt was "restraint of trade," and that the "attempt to monopolise the monopolisation" was the subject of the second section. The chief Justice said that in getting at the meaning of the words he would be guid< d by the principle that where words are employed In a Statut?', which at the time had a well known meaning in common law, or in the law ?'f this country, they were pre? sumed to have I.n used In this sense unless ihe context compels to the centre i y. He summarized his search Into the com ion law and the law of the coun? try u the time the Sherman antl I trust law was passed so far as the I first section was concerned as fol ? lows: "A. That the context manifests that the staibte was drawn in the light Iof the existing practical conception of I the law of resralnt of trad - because i j it groups aa within that class not I only contracts which were In ro Istrain! of trade in the subjective sense, but all contracts or acts which theoretically were attempts to mon? opolise, yet which In practice had come to be considered na in restraint of trade in a broad sense. " 11, That in v lew of I h many forms of contracts and combinations I Which were beim: evolved from exist I inu economic conditions it was deem led essential by an all-embarclng enumeration to make sure that no form of contract or combination by which an undue restrain! of inter? state or foreign trade could nave such restraint from condemnation, Tie sta? tute under this v i. w evidenced tli?-? intent not to restrain tho right to make and enforce contracts, whether resulting from combinations or other | Wise, did was not unduly restrain j Interstate or foreign commerce, but to protect that commerce from be? ing restrained by method- whether old or new which constitute an Inter? ference that Is an undue restraint "C. And as the contracts or acts i he provision wa re not ?d, since the enum ?? ? j ti"ii addressed Itself simply t'? class i of acta .those classes being br no enough i" ?'ini'i'.ii f i r\ concelvabl j contract or combination which could be mad concerning Ih trade or comm Toe or the sunjects of 'w< b commerce) and thus caused an> act. done by any ol tin . numerated m lu ods anywhere In the whole Held of human acth ity, t<? he lib gal, f i-i restraint of trade, it follows, its pro? visions necessarily called for th i ere I so of judgment which r< itiir^d that some standard should be ?<? sorted to for the purpose < deter? mining whether the prohibitions con? tained In the statu?, bad or hajl not in giny given case been vlloated, Thus, not r.pecifylng but Indutably contem? plating and requiring a standard, it follows that it was Intended that the standard at the common law and In this country In dealing with subje 'is of th-- character embraced by the statute, was Intended to be the meas? ure used for the, purpose of deter? mining whether in an given case a particular act had or had not brought about the wrong against which the statute provided." As to the second section he said the investigation of the common Law and Of law at the time the Sherman act was passed established that It was intended to supplement the flrsi and to make sure that by nb possl >ie guise could the public policy .'-m bodled in the first section be frustrated or evaded. Having In the first section forbidden all means of monopolisa? tion of trade, thai Is, unduly restrain? ing it by means of t very contract, combination, etc., the second section according to the chief justice, seeks if possible to make the prohibition to the act all the more compb to and perfect by embracing all attempts to reach the end prohibited by the first section by any attempt to monopo? lise, or monopolisation th reof, even although acts by which SUCh results are attempted to be brought about or are brought about, he not embraced within the general enumeration of the first section." Here the chief justi.,. first spoke of using the "rule of reason" In ip* plying the statute o any given case. 1fe said: "And . f course, when the second section Is thus harmonized with and made, as it was intended to he, the complement of the first, it becomes oblvious that criteria to be resorted to In any given case for the purpose of ascertaining whether violations of the section have been committed Is the rule of reason guided by the es? tablished law and by the plain duty to enforce the prohibitions of the act and thus the QUbllc policy which its restrictions were obviously enacted to subserve. And it is worthy of ob? servation, as We have previously re? marked concerning the common law, that although the statute by the com? prehensive ness of the /'numerations embodied in both the first and second sections makes it assiduously certain that its purpose was to prevent undue restraints of every kind or nature, nevertheless, by the omission of any direct prohibition against monopoly in the concrete, it indicates a con? sciousness that the freedom of the individual right to contract, when not unduly or improperly exercised, W8S the most efficient means for the pre? vention of monopoly since the opera* tlbn of the Centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting from the right to freely contract was the means by which monopoly would i?o Inevitably prevented If no extraneous or a >ver elgn power imposed it, and no right to make unlawful contracts having a monopolistic tendency were per? mitted. In other words, that freedom to contract was the essence of free loin from undue restraint or. the right to contract." The chief justice next considered .in- cotnentlon of the parties as to the meaning of the statute. fie said in substance the propositions of the gov? ernment wer,, reducible to the claim that th.- language of the statute em? brace d "every contract, combination, etc., in restraint of trade," and left no room for the exercise of judgment but simply imposed the plain duty of applying its prohibitions t<> every case within its literal language. The error of th ? government on this point, Chief Justice White said, was in nssumlng that the decision of th,' ( .ort had been in accordance with the conten? tions. "This is true," said the chief jus tlce, "because ;|S to the OMSe Which may come under the classes stated ? i ib.. i.rst section nnd the restraint of trade to whi.h that section applies ire not specifically enumerated or defined, it is o!m lous, that judgnv III must in every c;ts.. be called Into iday in order to determine whether i i 'v'.icular act \< embraced wltlt-u the statutory classes and whether If the act i^- within such classes its na? ture causes it to be restraint of trade iv it bin the Intent of the fact. "To Ichi to the contrai y w ould itilre th. conclusion either that every ?ontract. act or combination of any kind or nature, whether it operated as i restraint on trade or not, was within the statute nnd thus the statute would ?e destructive of all right to contract ? r agr e or combine in tiny respect whatever as to subj ?? ? - . rubra i l i;i Interstate Lrade or commerce, or if thin conclusion were noi reached, then tli" contention would require it tf> be held that If tin- State did w?\ d - line the things to which ;* rei; i i and excluded resorts i<? i] < only means >j which tin a<ts to which it relatvs could be ascertain c" the light a' reason??the enforcement of Lhe Ftat ute will !?<? Impossible be< ? Its i net: rtantity, "The merel) generic enumeration .vhich the statute makes of the acts i<> which it refers and tie absenci of any definition of restraint of trade as used in the statute leaves room for itiit one c6nclusioni which is that it expr< ssly designed not to unduly limit the application rf the act by precise definition, but while clearly fixing a standard?that is. by defining the ulterior boundaries which could be transgressed with Impunity, to leave it to ho determined by the light of reason, guided by the principles of law and tho duty to apply and enforce the public policy embodied in Ihe statute, in every given case, whether any particular act of contract was within the contemplation of ?.he Statute." The chief justice took up the facts and the applications of th..- .statute- t ? them. The court found that the re? sult of enlarging the capital stock ? f the St:o dani Oft Company of JCev Jersey nd tie acquisition ?>' that compan? nf lhe shares ? f tie- stock of the ulhor corporations in exchange for itt certificates gave r ? the cor? poration an enlarged and more per? fect sway and COI tr< ! over the trade and commerce in * i Li i m ar.d l*s product. The effect of this, ?.'hie' Justlle White said, the lower court held, was to destroy ? pot ntial ty of competition" which otherwise would have existed to such an extent as t? be a combination or . nsj I racy in restraint of trade in violation of the fust section of the act, and also be an attempt to monopolise, and a monopolisation to bring about a per? ennial violation of the second section. "We See no cause to dOUbt the cor rectness of these conclusions," said the chief justice,? "considering the subject from every aspect, that is. both in view of th< facts as estab? lished by the court and the necesssay operation and effect of the law as we have construed it upon the inferences deduclble from the facts." In scrutinising the acts and doings of the Standard Oil in the past for the purpose of getting assistance in dis? covering intent and purpose, Chief Justice White left a cutting remark: "We think no disinterested mind can survey the period in question without being irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the very genius for commercial development and organi? zation which it would seem was man? ifested from the beginning soon begot tlie hitent and purpose to exclude others which was frequently mani? fested by ac ts and dealings wholly Inconsistent with the theory that they were made with tho single concep? tion of advanc ing the development of I usiness power by usual methods, hut which, on the contrary, necessarily Involved the intent to drive others from the field and to exclude them from their right to trade and thus, ac? complish the mastery which was the end in view. And, considering the pe? riod from the date: of the trust agree? ment in 1 STD and lssrj up to the time of tiio expansion of the Xew Jersey corporation, the gradttal extension of the power over the commerce in oil which ensued: the decision of the su? preme court of Ohio, the tardiness or reluctance in conforming to the com? mands of that decision; the method first adopted and that which finally culminated in tin- plan of the New .Jersey corporation. all additionally serve to make manifest the continued existence of the Intent which we have I previous!} Indicated and which, among other things, impelled the ex? pansion of the \ew Jersej corpora? tion." finally the chief justice cam-- to apply the remedy, lie said that ordi? narily w here violations of the act were found to have lieen committed it would BUfllce to enjoin further viola? tions, in a case, however, where a monopolization or attempt to monopo? lize was established, or the existence of a combination Is proved, the con? tinuance of w hich was a pern nniai v io? lation of the statute, tlu- relief was ? ailed for. Tin- lower court. In pointed out. had first enjoine ! the combination and .n effeci dir. ? ted its dissolution; second, forbidding tin- New Jersey corporation from exercising any con? trol i>y virtue of iis stock ownership over the subsidiary corporations and enjoined those corporations from rec? ognizing in any manner tin- authority or power of ti?.- N. w Jersey corpora lion by virtue of su<h ownership; third, enjoined in the sixth section of tiie de, iee ihe subsidiary corporations after Hie dissolution, from doing any in t which could create a like Illegal combination; fourth, enjoined lhe Now Jersey corporation and all the subsidiary corporations from doing any business in Interestato i ?mmerce pending the dissolution of the combi? nation by the accomplishment of the Makes Home Bal ing Easy POWDER Absolutely Pure The only baking powder made from Royal Grapo Cream of Tartar HO ALUM.H0 LIME HiOSPHATE tracer of stocks which the decree in its essence required, and fifth, gave 30 days to carry out the direction* of the conn. Tli ? court said tnis decree was t r :iu and should he affirmed except as to what it termed "minor matters." One of these was the extension ??f the time the de. ree ould be put Into f?ff< ct from one month to six months. The ether modification was more i:n p? riant and had to do with the Sixth pect I on of tin- decree, which forbade the format!* n by the g ibsidlary cor* ? orations or their stockhold rs of like e mblnattoas. "We construe tin sixth paragraph of the decree," said the chief justice, 'i i s depriving the stockholders or > ? rpt rations to live under the law of t] ? land, hut as compelling obedience bat law." Kcal Estate Transfers. The following transfers i f real es? ^ tat.' were recorded during the past week in the office of the County <'!erk: Mrs. Julia I.. Hirns to Mrs. Fannie i.. Waiters.. 2<m? acres In SKtloh town* ship, $1.050. Harriett Ii. Eberhardt to Emmie A. Panders. 10:5 acres near Hagood, $5, 00??. Mrs. Lola Young to Charles L. Cuttlno, lot and premises on Broad street extension. $25 and the asfum ption of a $700 mortgage. 11. T). Lee, ct al. as executors, to T. J. CummlngS, as executor, 120 a.cres in county, $6.000. Bmma Oamon, Peter Bradley, Ed? ward Bradley, Rena Robertson. Carrie Tomlinson to Thomas Bradley. 2*5 1-2 i acres in county, $196.33. i Kussel D. Zimmerman to Mary If. Plckney, 10 acres and premises, $650. Margaret Moore, et al to Ida Moore. 36 acres in county, $1.00 and j other consideration. \V. Et Wells to W. W. Skinner. 51 1-2 acres on Sumter-Bishopville road, $1.057. / I Master to Hugh C. Haynsworth, lot on Manning avenue, $30. K. E. "Wright to J. C. Spann, lot on Purdy street, $525. W. T. Hunter to Hardy Anderson. 4 t'.-10 acres on Sumter-Wedgefield road. $5.oo and other consideration. Kembert Company to (i. a. Mur? ray, jot in town of Reinheit. $275. \. H. Banders to Robert Moody. !ot and store at Hagood. $1.175. Lavtnla Johnson to HetUe McMil? lan, the custody ot in-r Infant son, $ To. J. H. Archer to j. k. Ltgon, 5.55 acres in county, $l,lao. Sumter Ice Light and Power Com? pany to Perry Moses and r. a. Butt man, three bds and buildings situat? ed on them, $ i $0,000. Perry Moses and F. a. Bultman to Ii. T. Hartman, three lots in the city with buildings on them, $300 and oth? er considerations. Ii. T. Hartman t ? Pumter Lighting Company, three lots iti *? it>? with uildings on th? m and all appurte? nances formerly belonging to the Sumter Ice, Light and Power Com? pany, $38$.000, Sam J. Jenkins to Bmma J, Wilson. l"t In t ?wn of llayesville, $200, In The Police Omit. There a*ere only ^ few eases to be luard in the Police Court Monday morning by Recorder Lee v hen his court convened that morning. IHltard Cooper was found guilty of riding a bicycle at night without s light. He was fined $2.00 fir the of light. H was f,n. d $2.00 for the of? fense and $1.00 for not appearing in Willis Taylor was charged with vagrancy t? which charge he plead not guilty, lie was unable to give a good account of himself, however, and was sent ?c d to pay a fine of $15 ot to serve 30 days. He did not have the mono) to p,\ the tine so took the Willis Taylor w is also given a pre? liminary for grand larceny. He was charged with stealing $00 from G. Schladaressl and held ov< r tor the court of general sessions. Fail was Axed not \\