Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-10-16

1
lent imposition of a burden upon the
public. Wher a property worth a
| million dollars upon all the sober tests
| of value is capitalized at five millions
|assume that it's purchasers will exert
every effort to keep its earnings up to
the basis of their capitalization When
the inevitable depression comes, wages
must be reduced. prices enhanced. or
dividends foregone. AS prices are nat
urally not increased but lowered in dull
periods, it usually resolves itself into
question of wages or dividends. While
| this condition may exist under any
circumstances, it is exaggerated by
lovercapitalization in the illustrating
case five to one.
AS to regulating these trusts. the
Sherman law had been found to be
defective thru federal court decisions.
For instance, in the case of the sugar
trust, which controlled 9S per cent of
| the whole, the supreme court decided
that as the monopoly was in the pro-
duction or manufacture of sugar and it's
sale or distribution among the States
and to foreign countries was but inci-
dental thereto, it was not within the
prohibition of the law, saying that
manufacturing, altho it precedes COM
merce, is not part of it, and that the
act only applied to restraints of COM
merce. In a subsequent case the gov
eminent destroyed a combination
known as the Addyston Pipe Combine
ton, where conspiracy in restraint of
interstate commerce was plainly
shown.
To his mind these cases seem to de-
fine the scope Of the anti-trust law and
show how little there is now left for
the statute to operate upon. 1t Is not
enough, it seems, that a trust or COR
poration owning corporations exists, or
that it is engaged in interstate or for
eign commerce, for its mere engaging
in commerce is not prohibited, or that
1t monopolizes production tthruout the
country, or that 1t is formed to restrain
or monopolize business within state
or destroys competition in buying or
selling within a state, or that by any
of these things ii indirectly affects IN
terstate commerce with practical re-
straint or monopoly, to bring the cor
poration or it's particular transaction
within the emphatic clauses or under
the drastic penalties of the anti-trust
law. What seems to be necessary is to
establish by legal proof in court a COM
bination for the direct monopoiizing or
restraining of what is strictly inter-
state commerce, and to prove this
against combinations whose affairs are
conducted upon the best legal advice
as to what is and what is not obnoxious
to the law, by methods secret or In
geniously contrived to avoid the letter
OF the law.
He believes that congress has the
power under existing constitutional
grants to amend and extend the law
and thus remedy Its defects and eff
fectively regulate national and foreign
commerce as to prevent the sitting of
competition. the regulating of output
and price, and the restraining of ma
tional and international trade.
In seeking to remedy the present
statute he falls back upon the common
law and its development. He believes
1t is difficult to improve upon the great
unwritten code known as the common
law. Under It's salutary guarantees and
restraints the Ens.lish-speaking people
have attained their wealth and power.
II condemns monopoly, and contracts in
restraint of trade as we'll. The dis
tinction, however, between restraints
that are reasonable in view of all the
circumstances and those which are un-
reasona BILE, is recognized and has been
followed in this country by the courts.
A law regulating interstate COM
merce for its protection against re-
straint, so broad as to cover all persons
whose business is conducted under
agreements which are in any way or to
any extent in restraint of trade, might
exclude thousands of small concerns
conducting industries in one state from
marketing their products in others; but
law which only covers contracts and
combinations in restraint of trade as
defined by the common law would ex-
clude all hurtful combinations and con-
spiracies. Congress can, If 1t sees f1t.
adopt the scheme of that law. In the
enforcement of suc,n law each case as it
arose would be considered upon it's own
facts. and the rule of guidance would
be as laid down by the supreme court
of the United States; that is, public
welfare is first considered, and If 1t be
not involved and the restraint upon one
party is not greater than protection to
the other party requires, the contract
may be sustained. The question is
whether, under the particular circum-
| stances of the case and the nature Of
the particular contract involved in it,
the contract is or Isl not reasonable"
i