The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-15
THE CnMMnN LAM


Aue a.Vo'He! senerh eApialhen tue cases
now being conducted under the sherman
act ahd continued:
The extent to which legislative control
over commercial activities should ne exor-
clsed y, Of course, q question for legiSli-
tive wisdom. We have the experience OF
the otner nations to guide us In detcrmn
ing how far the delicate and mysterious
rules Of trade can be lnterfered with by
positive statutes without Injury. That eS-
pefiehcc teaches ~ that the least iuterfer-
ence consistent with the preservation Of o.
Scntial rights should exist, Arbitrary reg
ulatlons that restrain free intercourse are
~nsuallN found 10 he unwlse.
Primarily IL Is for the congress TO decide
Wnttnef u mas the power ana Nhcther anu
character Of restraints. whether all or those
Nlly which are unreasonable aud iniuTi MS
Shall fail under the ban, whether leglsla-
tlun in the first instance should extend %
all commerce or only to commerce la ar
tlCles 81 vital Importance TO the people
The time never vas when the English
speaking people permitted the articles lie
cessary Tor their existence 70 ne monopo
lizcd or controlled and all devices TO that
end found condemnation in tho body Of
their laws. The great English judges pro
ncunccd that such manifestations OF human
aVarice Required no statute o. declare their
Gl.iawfulness that they we're crliueS
against common laW-ihut Is, against com
mon right
Il Is difficult 10 improve upon the great
unwrittien code known as the common law lazy.
the Notwithstanding people have attained
their wealth ana power III cohuemhs mo
as well The distinction. however between
restraints that are reasonable IN view OF
all the circumstances and those which are
unreasonable. is recognized ana mas peeh
followed In this country by the courts
This distinction makes rule that may be
practically applied, and preserves the ra-
tional mean between unrestrained com
merce ana the absolute freedom OF contract.
Let me give you an Illustration showing
the difference between reasonable and
unreasonable arrangement or contract NJ
common law. First, as TO reasonable
one
The case of sale Of business ana us
good VIII Is sc5d illustration. Here re-
strieted covenant upon the part OF the ven
dor not TO engage In competition IN SUI
liar business is often the main cohsloeta-
tion for the transaction. THIS covenant IS
of course in restraint of trade ana lnter-
feres with competition. But to make con-
tract such rs this illegal is not only r.
strictive OF the liberty oi cuhlAt', u tf
* depriying one Of his property Wllbou
due process of law. Good VIII Is property
enable of being appraised. bought anu
sold In many eases II Is the main mgr
dent Of value II represents an the strus'
I'D Industry tact and judgment thlt
makes sueccgs In estimating the worth
Of business Il Is not intrequehtiy tecN,
oned more valuable than the buildings Ml9
machinery that make mp the physlcat
NAM
such q contract has been held reasonahie
AMI veiI1
Nav rs 70 an unreasonable agreement lct
mo n,otc nm illustration from tho pen Of
Instice 81 tho supreme cmrt:
Nforris Rnn Coal Company VS.. Bar
~ 49, co,,,,nny lin rho supreme court
~ Pennsylyanisl the principal question was
~ ths yaiIdit1 of \ contract made he
tween Gve coal corporations Of Pennsy !
, ;.e, ~, ~ 80 coal REGIONS ~ which they
bod tbn control. The referee 10 the ease
I'M goUnd that those companies acquired under
theit u'leinh, ~ -. titnn,inous coal IN the
lily ~ nlI 1art ~ me state and their com
heItatlu pa as tbeyefore a restraint upon
,rnSa AVID AGAINST public policy. In re-
s slSG 10 the suggestion that the real pur'
pose Of the combination WIS 70 les ssh snd