The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-02-02
KNOX DISCUSSES
TRADE RESTRAINT
Continued From First Page.

OO1lIAuCI IOUl rage.
the antitrust law so far as foreign
commerce is concerned. This would re-
suit in giving foreign commerce an ad-
vantage over our domestic commerce.
BY means of such a power the tariff
protection will be largely nullified 1t
Is well known that the steamship COM
panies and railroads have in instances
combined SO that foreign traffic has
been carried from Berlin to Chicago
at rates so per cent lower than similar
goods made in this country could be
transported from New York to Chi
cago. Tin has frequently been carried
from Wales to Chicago at a lower rate
than the railroads would carry tin
manufactured in Pittsburg to Chicago.
Boots, clothing, hardware, etc, from
Germany have been carried through
to San Francisco at rates SIS per cent
lower than was charged by the railroad
carrier on similar manufactures of our
country from Atlantic ports to San
Francisco.
Rule of ReasonabIeness.
While it may be a wise policy to in
corporate the rule of reasonableness
into the regulation by law of contracts
between individuals and con-
/ tracts of Industrial corporations
which are private corporations.
that rule has never been APP
piled to quasi public corporations
railroads, for example. which exercise
public functions and enjoy public
functions and enjoy public rights. They
owe duties to the public in cohsidera-
ton of the grant to them of public
franchises, among which is the duty
fpefV
ton in rates, service and facilities.
This amendment would tend to relieve
them from many of their most impor-
tant duties to the public It's enact
ment, instead of being protection to
commerce, would be to effect an I'M
doing of very much of the most i'm
portant remedial legislation of the past
fifteen years. If this proposed amend
ment shall be regarded as wise legis-
lation, it ought not to be done secret
ly, but openly with full knowledge of
the public and full opportunity to it to
be heard on the subject Such an
amendment as is now proposed ought
not to be attached to any bill in the
closing hours of a mOribund congress.
1.-The statement that the proposed
amendment is in line with the sugges-
ton 1 made in an address at Pitts
burg in October, 1902, is a great mis-
take-a mistake based upon miscon-
ception of the rule of the common
law and the difference between the ap-
plication of the rule to undertakings
that are strictly private and those that
are public or quasi-public. In that ad-
dress (the main purpose of which was
to show that the power of congress
was not exhausted by the Sherman
act), in discussing the exercise of that
power over the industrial trusts,
said:
Up to Congress.
1.-The extent to which legislative con-
troll over commercial activities should
be exercised is, Of course, a question
for legislative wisdom Primarily it is
for the congress to decide whether it
has the power, and whether and to
what extent it will execute it-what
character of restraints: whether all or
those only which are unreasonable and
injurious shall fall under the ban
whether legislation in the first instance
shall extend to all commerce or only
to commerce on articles of vital i'm
portance to the public.
Il stated if the common law were in
corporated into federal statute, the
rule for its Interpretation would be as
laid down by the supreme court of the
United States, namely: Public welfare
is first considered, and if it be not in
vOlved and the restraint upon one par
ty is not greater than protection to
the other party requires, the contract
may be sustained
''The proposed amendment overlooks
the fact that the public welfare is in
volved in any restraint that public cor
porations may impose upon themselves,
and therefore the amendment does not
propose to Introduce the rule of the
common law. but its enactment would
be legislative grant of power to re-
strain commerce, prohibited by the
common law, as all restraints which
affect the public welfare injuriOusly are
void at common law"