Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
000327
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 08, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

iwnv XVI. 815 the cxislciicc wlicrcot' u;is diir to a roiiiMiiatioii Ix'twccn siirli (•( »m|).iiii('s .iiid other companies was a violation of llic ad, the (piestioii would remain wlietlier such of tlie eoml)anies as did not owe tlieii' existenee and power to combinations, hut wlioso powder alone aros(^ from the exercise (►f the right to vUHjuire and own property, would be amenable to the proliibitions of the act. Yet further: Kven if this proposition was held in the affirmative, the question would remain whether the principal defendant, the American Tobacco Co., \vhen stripped of its stock ownership, would be in and of itself within the prohibitions of the act, although that company was organized and took being before the antitrust act was passed. Still further, the question would yet remain wliether })ai'ticular corporations which, wdien bereft of the pow^r wiiich they possessed as resulting from stock owTiership, although they were not inherently possessed of a sufficient residiuun of power to cause them to be in and of themselves either a restraint of trade or a monopolization or an attempt to monopolize, should nevertheless be restrained because of the intimate connection and association with other corporations found to be within the prohibitions of the act. After having enumerated the questions of law involved in the Tobacco case ]\Ir. Chief Justice White proceeded in the following words to state