The daily silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1903-1907, 1904-10-22
AS 10 "COMMON LAW"

Senator Knox. former attorney general.
in a speech at Philadelphia. corrects
Judge Parker's mistakes, as follows.
In Judge Parker's speech to tie nof-
ication committee. when speaking of the
trusts, he said: THE common law, as
developed, affords a compete legal rem
edy against m~onopoles
In President Roosevei. S letter of ac-
ceptance the President SAID: There IS
no common law of the united S~a-es.'
Judge Parker's letter of acceptance,
cling a case. ~rejo-ned that the Supreme
court deof1ed that common law principles
could be applied by Uniiea States courts
IN cases involving Interstate commerce.
III the alb .ence of United States sta .utes.
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 sta .ement that the common law
furnishes a complete legal remedy
against monopol.es must, IKE all other
general statements be considered in con
nect.on with the subject of which 1T is
predicated. The judge was discussing
trusts and the people wanted to know
how interstate could be pro-
tec.ed against restraints and monopolies.
The Republican party thought II couio
only be lone by leg Station. and passed
the Sherman act for that purpose, which
was supplemented by the legislation or
the Fifty-eightn Congress. Judge Par
ker thinks the common law affords a
"comple,e'-note ,.ie wo.d. conn., lee
legal remedy.
Pies.den Roosevelt's reply that there
is no common law of the United States
means there is no common law of the
Uni, ed States that furnishes a complete.
or. / may add, ever an incomplete. legal
remedy against restraints an. monopo-
lies.
Judge Parker's re.oinuer to this was
either intended 10 mislead the Teople, or
he does not know the case to
which he refe.s d~ec.oes, or what the rule
OF the common law is as to combinations
in res RANT of trade. | prefer to think
the latter is the correct explanation. ne
case 10 which he refers decides Simply
that as between parties who are thrash
ing out Their differences in a lawsuit III
the United States court the rules of the
common law will be app.-eo by the
United States courts when a d-f1erent
rule has not been supplied by a Unit
States statute; and this is so. Though me
matter out of which the controverss
arises relates to interstate commerce, as
1t always has been in respect of other
matters. S. ecifica.ly, the case decided
that a telegraph company was liable Tor
damages for charging one newspaper
more for furnishing dispatches than II
charged another for the same service un-
der like circumstances. Judge Parker >
oidactic u,t,rance that such is the law
of the land. with which he concludes
~ "a $500 F
no more relevant than If he had an
nounced any other ,ndispu able Legal
proposition. The dSc.sion in the case Ia
which he refers does not mean what II Is
INTENDED the people shoutu think IL
means. namely. that the common law
can prevent persons from making COM
binations and monopol.es in res.s2.at Oh
intel e commerce and that the Unitci
States could proceed against them II
common law. An agreement In restraint
OF trace Is not and never was ualawfu
at common law in any such sense as tina
the agreement could be nui...ed by pub
lie authority or that persons not parties
to II could sustain an action against 1t
for damages. IL takes statute law 10
confer such remedies, and the President
is clearly right in saying there is no
common law of the Uni ed 5 ates' for
any such purpose. Parties to an agree
ment In restraint OF trade canno en-
force them. as between themselves. al
common law. But that is another qucs-
ton. AS this Is not u legal argument /