New-York tribune., 1904-10-10
COMMON LAW AND TRUSTS
PARKERlS VIEWS WRONG.
Henry ". Taft Says He Has No
Distinct and Candid Policy.

case Of the Western Union Telegraph Company
against the Gail Publishing Company. to sup
port his propositions that the common law as
developed affords d complete legal remedy
against monopo.ies." and that officials having
the disposition could enforce the common law
against monopo.ies and trusts was decidedly
misleading The case" says Mr. Taft was
irrelevant TO the matter Judge Parker was DIS
cussns. For Whatever else the court may have
decided it did not decide that there is dis
tiuct system of the common law IN the United
States courts or that that system furnishes
complete remedy against monopolies ana
trusts.
The telegraph company engaged tn In
terstate commerce and the Call company re-
covered from it damages for a discriminat tloh
in rates The theory of the court seems to nave
been that as Congress was vested under the
federal Constitution with exclusive power TO
regulate and control interstate commerce there
was TO be implied from its omission to leglslate
an intention to adopt the general rules ordinari-
" governing the conduct of affairs OF common
carriers. So far from holding generally that
there was federal common law system the
court quoted without disapproval n number Of
jts own decisions directly to the contrary And
the question whether there any unwrittep
or common law OF the federal courts which
would enable the government TO prevent a
monouolv ur 10 control or regulate a Combina-
ton IN restraint OF Interstate commerce was not
before the court. and if it had been, it must
have been held that when Congress passed the
Sherman act and the several antitrust and
interstate commerce acts of 1903 they super
seded any unwritten law upon the subject"
Mr. Taft adds
Furthermore. there can be no adequate remedy
trade without criminal penalties and # IS settled
within federal Jurisdiction which are not expressly
defined as such IN The statutes of The United
U-l. -,,o,, ~ bae, iIlesi ~ rbs sense
that ths government could restrain the parties TO
them from carrying them out The law simply re-
ment to compel the other party 70 perform IT,
EFFECT OF THE SHERMAN ACT.
The rules % the common law were framed long
bnations, and when very different conditions ex-
tempted 10 cope with corporate aggressious. but
they have always found II necessary to pass avs
the Sherman Auti-Tr1St act Republican admins
tratons Rave made great progress in procuring de-
cisons the Joint Traffic. the Addystou Pipe. the
Northern Securities. m" Beef Trust and the salt
Trust cases and yet IT has been found necessary In
order 90 preven, or punish ingenious eVaslons 70
pass four five important supplementary statutes.
IN order tr expedite trials procure information
otherwise inaccesehle establish effective rules OF
ana otherwise perfect The law and strengthen tn
hands ~ the Interstate 'onnerce commission 30
The rr,,-s ~ common L. and Mr. Roosevelt sums
The whole matter Quife correctly wheu 10 says
"It action against trustz and mouopoies ~ 10 %
limited 10 cases where tho common law IS appli-
able the natlousl govcrnmer, could take no ac-
Ion whateye- y regulate then. ,.,,.,l r,,,,-o-
law is not. however, intrins.calsy important IN
his attention was called 10 hs mistake. So teaa-
ciously. so elaborately and. Y may say 50 Win
academic view ~ rhe law Dic De- fud a. 2 con-
venient means OF befoggng and evadius the
TtaEU 7
inaccurate. splr!,iess-especIally when compared
the taTif as complete renleds for the evils Of The
trusts Action IN sue q matte 10y t tl'e AT, $50
~ St1tes rights and OF construction of con
under "a federal common law sF+teii NJ @
would deLouuc~ "aUttcioGs. harefaceG ana
says In . llr,sr To- Edmund randolph date Angus,
j. 1920. thai The common law dlf ngt oecon'e ps1
faCt0. law of the association lof states IL the
jnioni. il could only become so by positive edoy-
adopt. But great heavens. who could have
conceived IN 1850 that withlu ten years We shoulc
Derocratic treatment of the trusts has not de-
parted from tho Jenersontln IDEALS
When nr. Cleveland was a cahdlda.e lor re-
election IN 1855 he called attention 10 tle abusts
o. lae trusts ana me - ~ ''-TSe T5 far
,~ssi g, -. ne ~, P5 81 session Appointed a com
ie Cos ess ei ii ~ ,h@ s,Ibiect' and thev held
meetings during the campaiSu-a gentle intlmatlon
the voter that the country was 70 be rid Of the
trusts Al the hands Of the Democratic party II it
was successful! hu' Mr. C!eysIand was vas deIeateh: ,i:
and tho commission submitted the facts without
. recommendation. The Republican Congress how
>
the election og Mr cleveland IN lS9., &, had been
held 10 be constitutional.
WHY PRESIDENT CLEVELAND FAILED.
IN his Inaugural! address Mr.. Cleveland again
. denounced the trusts, ana cautiously PROMISED
prosecution by the general government TO the ex-
tent that they can be reached and restrained by
federal power but at the end OF his adminstra-
ton after induging in comnendanIe denuneiaI1n !rT
OF the evils OF trusts. he wrote as follows Ih9
fact must he recognized. however. that al fe9eTtI
legislation on this subject may ran snorL o. LIS i,s
/ purpose because OF the complex character OF our
governmental system, which while making teg-
eral authority supreme It's sphere has carefully
limited that sphere oy Laeles aHu nSu,lus @ ~ 80
.ttS ~ ~, @ S .,is F 9-1Is+s nd r1onopoiles
I De adequately treated through federal action
in their objects transportation or intercourse be-
tween states or between the United States and
And lately Mr. Cleveland has said: 7 recall that
I examined closely the law and received report
from Mr. Olney. who was then Attorney ,IeheEa'.
We were blocted by decisions OF the Supreme Court
And now the regenerated Democracy or New- N
York STATE meeting in convention April Is. 1904.
porations chartered Dy me STATE must ne -upg7
10 Just regulations by the STATE In the interest ot
( eral government ought not 10 concern Itself with
ne ne tnr,s & 81 1 .ai3e NayYorl, Tir,es announced
/ that this platform submitted to and approved
by Mr. Parker before its submission TO the con
II was approved by the friends Of Mr.. Parker, who
are now in complete control OF the campaign and
without whose active support he could .ot have
that these friends are primarily not polltcians n,
immense corporate undertakings
The Democratic national platform q document
NJ Parker seems little to regard. witness the
gold 1s fe q @ Situation 5 age 1Ps eRf ps
cal suggestion 81 a remedial ns ture namely tina
( 80 rnvers OF the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion should be enlarged. il indefinite and. more
ica legislation OF 1903 referred 10 has gone further
than any Democratic administration would ever
5are m venture.