The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-05-15

The New York Times. of Friday has
a very elaborate editorial statement
regarding the laws against Trusts.an
the decisions in court OF last resort
concerning these laws. The article Is
based upon paper written by Mr.. r.
c. Davis. in the Quarterly Journal OF
Economics for May. After reviewing
the cases Mr.. Davis says:
In all these cases, decided by the
Circuit Courts OF the United States
upon the Sherman antitrust act. we
see the principles of the old common
law. The distinction between reason
able restraints upon trade runs
through them, and the courts refused
to declare any monopoly criminal
which, was not illegal under the COM
mon law. But, in the last of the de-
cisions of the Circuit Courts. that OF
the United States VS. Coal Dealers
Association, the court took the oppo-
site view. holding that any combination
which imposes a restraint upon inter-
state commerce is unlawful. whether
such restraint be fair or not, and
whether or no II has increased the
price OF the commodity dealt in. The
reason for this change will be found
in the decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Thereupon the Times expresses the
opinion that the recent Supreme Court
decision marks the beginning OF the
period Of sterper judicial construction
as shown in the Trans Missouri
Freight Association case.
Mr.. Davis thus sets forth this case
in its travel to final judgment:
In United States vs.. Trans Missouri
combination between several compet-
ing railroads. under an agreement for
forming an association to maintain
reasonable rates without preventing or
limiting competition. the Circuit Court
decided that Congress did not intend
to include eommon carriers. which
were subject to the act OF Feb. 4. 1887.
within the provisions of the antitrust
act. this act being a special statute re-
lating to combinations in the form of
trusts Such an agreement as this was
not an agreement, combination, or
conspiracy in restraint OF trade. and
did not tend TO 'monopolize trade and
commerce within the meaning of this
act. The case was appealed to the Cir
cult Court of Appeals. where the de-
cision of the Circuit Court was sus-
tanned. The court. moreover. laid down
the rule that contracts. combinations
in trust or otherwise. and consplrators
in restraint OF trade under the anti
trust act are such as have been de-
clared against public policy under the
common law Hence the reasonable
ness OF the combination must be con-
sidered in each case. But, finally, on
appeal TO the Supreme Court the case
was decided the other way. and the
two decisions given above were revers-
ed. The court held that an agreement
between railroads for maintaining
rates and for organizing an association
10 enforce such rates was an agree
ment I'm restraint of trade and COM
merce under the antitrust act, and
such an agreement was In no manner
authorized by the Interstate Conn
merce act. The contract. combinations
in restraint OF trade or otherwise. and
conspiracies in restraint of trade or
commerce include all contracts operat-
ing 10 restrain trade, whether legal or
illegal OF common law, or whether the
restraint Is reasonable or unreason-
able"
The Times finally sums up the con-
diflon IN the following way:
But must be evident to all men
that concerns like the Tammany Ice
Trust and. the International Paper
Company are in peril. A sudden and
great advance in prices without rea-
son 90 good and justifying that II Is
visible TO everybody excites animoslty
and.ieads consumers 20 seek a remedy.
Remedies are sought against
these ombinations-agslnst the Am
erIcan Ice Company by a proceeding
before the attorney general. and
asainss the Paper Trust BY a congress