The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-21
TRUSTS FATE in
BREWERS HANDS
Balance Of Power on Supreme
Bench Is Held by
il a.. Justice.
Knox Must Be Guided by His
Ruling of Sherman
Law.
Ninth Justice Has Deciding Vote
y He Believes Certain Com
bines Legal.

FROM The Journal Bureau, Colorado Building.
Washington. 500
Washington, March 21.-The Sher-'
man antitrust law, as interpreted by
the recent decision Of the United
States supreme court in the Northern
Securities case, Is to be enforced
against all combinations and conspir-
acies In restraint Of trade, as evidence
is gathered by the federal authorities
of a character to sustain it's prosecu-
tons.
The announcement that the presi-
dent and attorney general did not pro-
pose to run amuck" among the trusts
has been misinterpreted. BY some, it
was misunderstood; by others, it was
purposely perverted. The policy of
the administration, it may be authori-
tatlvely announced, Is as set forth in
the opening paragraph Of this dis
patch.
The attorney general has been
studying the opinion which is to be
his guide in future prosecutions, and
he finds 1t narrower in it's scope than
the first announcements by the press
would lead the public to believe.
For purposes Of prosecution, the
antitrust law is not the so-called ma
Joilly opinion TeIOsESu Dy y uSIlCe I1etH =
Ian, but it is the short opinion of JUS
tice Brewer, who, while voting with
the majority Of the court, disagreed
with the other four justices in his
method Of arriving at that result, and
who took a much narrower view as
to the scope of the law and the pow
ers Of the federal government to deal
with combinations in restraint Of
trade.
Test of Illegally.
The "reasonableness,' or otherwise,
of restraints put on competition and
trade Is made the test of illegality
Justices of the majority took the
ground that congress has the right,
under the constitution, to name any
restraints which it deems offensive to
Interstate trade, and to order the re-
moval Of such restraints.
Justice Harlan specifically stated
that they might be reasonable or I'M
reasonable; that the power of CON-
gress was plenary. By the Brewer
interpretation, each case must stand
on It's own merits, and the court re-
serves the right to say that the limita-
lions attempted by congress are I'M
reasonable and in conflict with the
spirit and letter of the constitution.
The language of Justice Brewer is
worth quoting. After reviewing pre-
vious decisions of the court on this
subject, he said:
Instead Of holding that the antitrust act
Included all contracts, reasonable or I'M
reasonable, in restraint of Interstate trade,
the ruling should have been that the cons
tracts there presented were In themselves
unreasonable restraints of interstate trade,
and therefore within the scope of the act.
Congress did not intend by that act to
reach and destroy those minor contracts In
partial restraint Of trade which the long
course of decisions at common law had
affirmed were reasonable and ought to be
upheld.
The purpose, rather, was to add stat
utory prohibition, which prescribed pen
alties and remedies to nullfy those con-
tracts which were in direct restraint OF
CONTINUED on Third Page.)