Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1904-10-13

ance, said the common law affords
complete legal remedy against mOnOpo-
lies. President Roosevelt, in his letter
Of acceptance, denied Mr.. Parker's as
sertiOn by saying that tIere is no com
mon law of the United States. Now
comes former Attorney General Philan-
der &. 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 taEiff and other national ques-
tiOns.
Mr.. Knox's Speech.
In speech at Philadelphia, on the
night OF Oct l. Mr.. Knox said:
''ln Judge Parker's speech to the mott
fcatiOn committee when speaking Of the
trusts, he said The common law as de-
yeloped affords a complete legal remedy
against monOpolies.'
in Pres mt Roosevelt's letter OF ac-
ceptance, tnt President said: There is
no common law of the United States
Judge Parkers 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 1eOmplete legal remedy
against monopohes must, like all other
general statements, be considered In con-
nection with the subject of which it is
predicated The Judge vas discussing
trusts and the people wanted to know
how interstate commerce could be pro-
tccted against restraints and mOnopo-
lies. The Republican party thought 1t
could only be done by legislation, and
passed the Sherman net for that purpose
which was supplemented by the legisla-
ton of the fifty-eighth Congress. Judge
Parker thinks the common law affords a
'completc'-n0te the word-'a complete
legal remedy
President Roosevclt's reply that
there IL no common law of the United
States means there is no common law Of
the United States that furnishes com
plete. or. | may add. even an incom-
plcte legal remedy against restraints and
monopolirs
Judge Parker's rejoinder to this was
either intended to mislead the people or
he does not know what the case to which
he refers decides or what the rule Of the
common law il as To combinations ia re-
straint of trade. | prefer to think the
lHtter il the correct explanation.
Gaze Cited by Parker.
The case TO which he refers decides
simply that rs between parties who are
threshlng out their differences in Il law
suit In the United States Court the rules
Of the common law will be applied by the
United States Courts, when n different
rule has not been supplied by a United
States statute and this is so though the
matter oct of which the controversy
arises relates to interstate commerce, as
it always has been in respect OF other
matters Specifically, the case decided
that telegraph company was liable for
damages for charging one newspaper
more for furnishing dispatches than 1t
charged another for the same service un-
der like circumstances. Judge Parker's
didactic utternnce that Such is the law
of the land with which he concludes the
discussion of this point. is true. but no
more relevant than IL he had announced
amy other indisputable legal proposition.
The decision IN the case TO which he
refers does not mean what IL is intended
the people should think IL means. namely,
that the common law can prevent per-
sons from making combinations and mon
oPoies IN restraint of interstate com
merce and that the United States could
proceed against them at common law.
AN agreement in restraint OF trade Is
not aud never was unla wful at common
law IN any such sense as that the agree
ment could he nullihed by public author
itA or that persons not parties to 1t could
sustain an action against 1t for damages.
l. takes statute law to confer such rem
ed,es, and the President is clearly right
In saying There Is no common law of
tine United States for any such purpose.
PARTIES 10 an agreement In restraint
of trade cannot enforce them. as between
themselves, at common law. But that Is
another question. As this is not legal
argument will not pursue the subject
further. Those who are curious to fol-
low IL ont will find most satisfactory
discussion OF the question by the law
lords of England in the Mogui 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 Ii IL in
restraint of trade Also. that contracts
la restraint OF trade are not illegal in
any Sausa pxprnf that fh.. law will pnt