River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1904-10-13
LAW AND THE TRUSTS
EX ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOX
REPLIES TO JUDGE PARKER
Most Eminent Authority in the Coun-
try says There Is No Common Law
of the United States that Furnishes
a Remedy Against Monopolies.

Judge Parker, in his letter Of accept
apco said the common law affords a
rornnlete legal remedy against monopo-
lies. President Roosevelt, in his letter
NJ acceptance. denied Mr. Parker's as
sertion by saying that there is no COM
mon law Of the United States. Now
comes former Attorney General Philan-
der G. Knox, probably the most eminent
authority in the country on the trust
question. who upholds the position taken
by the President and shows that Judge
Parker is as ignorant Of the law as he
is Of the tariff and other national ques-
tons.
Mr.. Knbx's Speech.
In speech at Philadelphia, on the
night Of Oct. ], Mr.. Knox said:
"In Judge Parker's speech 10 the notl-
fcation committee when speaking Of the
trusts. he said: The common law as de
veloped affords a complete legal remedy
against monOpOlies.'
in President Roosevelt's letter Of &C
ceptance, the President said: There Is
40 common law Of the United States
Judge Parker's letter Of acceptance,
citing a case rejoined that The Supreme
Court decided that cOmmon-law princi-
pies could be applied by United States
courts in cases involving interstate com
merce in the absence Of United States
statutes specifically covering the case.
Such is the law Of the land
"Of these three propositions the last
two are sound. The first is not. Judge
parker's statement that the common law
furnishes a complete legal remedy
against mOnOpolies must, like all other
general statements, be considered IN con
nectiOn with the subject of which it is
predicated. The Judge was discussing
trusts and the people wanted to know
how interstate commerce could be pro-
tected against restraints and mOnopo-
lies The Republican party thought it
could only be done by legislation, and
passed the Sherman act for that purpose,
which was supplemented by the legisa-
tion of the fly eighth Congress. Judge
Parker thinks the common law affords a
'c0mplete-nOte the word-'a complete
legal remedy
president RoOsevelt's reply that
there is no common law Of the United
States means there is no common law Of
the United States that furnishes a conn
plete, or, / may add, even an incom-
plete legal remedy against restraints and
monOpolies.
Judge Parker's rejOinder to this was
either intended to mslead the people or
he does not know what the case to which
he refers decides or what the rule of the
common law is as to combinations in re-
straint of trade. | prefer to think the
latter is the correct explanation.
Case Cited by Parker.
'The case to which he refers decides
simply that as between parties who are
rhreshing out their differences in law
suit in the United States Court the rules
OF the common law will be applied by the
United States Courts, when a different
rule has not been supplied by United
States statute, and this is so though the
matter out of which the controversy
arises relates to interstate commerce, as
it always has been i'll respect of other
matters. Specifically, the case decided
that a telegraph company was liable for
damages for charging one newspaper
more for furnishing dispatches than it
charged another for the same service I'M
der like circumstances. Judge Parker 5
ddactc utterance that Such is the law
of the land with which he concludes the
discussion of this point, is true, but no
more relevant than if he had announced
any other indisputable legal proposition.
THE decision in the case to which he
refers does not mean what it is intended
the people should think it means, namely,
that the common law can prevent per-
sons from making combinations and mon
OpOlies i'll restraint of Interstate com
nerce and that the United States could
proceed against them at common law.
An agreement in restraint of trade is
not and never was unlawful at common
law i'll any such sense as that the agree
ment could be nullited by public author
sty or that persons not parties to it could
sustain an action against it for damage
II takes statute law to confer such rem
edies, and the President is clearly right
in saying There is no common law of
the United States for any such purpose.
Parties to an agreement in restraint
of trade cannot enforce them, as between
themselves, at common law. But that is
another question. AS this is not a legal
argument | will not pursue the subject
further. Those who are curious to fol-
low it out will find most satisfactory
discussion of the question by the law
lords of England in the Mogul Steam
ship Company VS.. McGregor Bowen
l.. j., quoting Lord Crompton, in that
case states the proposition concisely in
this language: No action at common
law will lie. or ever has lain, against
any individual or individuals for entering
into a contract merely because it is in
restraint of trade Also, that contracts
jim restraint of trade are not illegal i'll
any sense except that the law will not
enforce them"