Milford chronicle., 1904-10-14


Judge Parker, in his letter Of accept
ance said the common law affords a
complete legal remedy against monopo-
LES President Roosevelt, in his letter
Of acceptance, denied Mr.. Parker's as
sertion by saying that there is no COM
mon law Of the United States. Now
comes former Attorney General Philan-
der c. 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 tariff and other national ques-
tions.
Mr.. Knox's Speech.
In a speech at Philadelphia. on the
night Of Oct. /, Mr.. Knox said:
in Judge Parker's speech TO the noti-
6cation committee when speaking of the
trusts. he said: The common law as de-
veloped affords complete legal remedy
against monopolies.'
In President Roosevelts letter of ac-
ceptance, the President said: There is
no common law Of the United States
Judge Parker's letter Of acceptance,
citing 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 complete legal remedy
against monopoies must, like all other
general statements, be considered in con-
necti0n with the subject of which it is
predicated. The Judge was discussing
trusts and the people wanted to know
how interstate commerce could be pro- |
tected against restraints and mOnopo- |
lies. The Republican party thought il |
could only he done by legislation. and |
passed the Sherman act for that purpose, /
which was supplemented by the legisla
tion of the Fifty-eighth Congress. Judge
Parker thinks the common law affords
'compete'-n0te the word-'a complete
'legal remedy
president Roosevelt's reply that
there is no common law Of the United
States means there is no common law Of
the United States that furnishes a com
plete. or, l may add even an incom-
plete legal remedy against restraints and
monopolies
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 is as to combinations in re-
straint Of trade. l prefer to think the
latter is the correct explanation.
Case Cited by Parker.
1.-THE case TO which he refers decides
simply that as between parties who are
threshing out their differences in law
suit in the United States Court the rules
of the common law will be applied by the
United States Courts. when a different
rule has not been supplied by a United
States statute, and this is so though the
matter out of which the controversy
arises relates to interstate commerce. as
Il 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 it +.
charged another for the same service un-
der ike circumstances. Judge Parker's
utterance that Such is the law
Of the land with which he concludes the
discussion Of this point, is true. but no
more relevant than if he had announced ,
any other indisputable legal proposition !
'phe decision in the case to which ne
refers does not mean what it is intended
The people should think it means. namely,
that the common law can prevent per-
IONS from making combinations and mon- :
'polies in restraint of interstate com
nerce and that the United States could (,
proceed against them at common law
An agreement in restraint Of trade is :
lot and never was unlawful at common /.
aw in any such sense as that the agree
nent could be nullifed by public author
~ or that persons not parties to it could
ustain an action against it for damages.
{ takes statute law to confer such rem
dies, and the President is clearly right 7
n saying There is no common law OF \
be United States for any such purpose. l.
Parties to an agreement in restraint
Z trade cannot enforce them, as between
themselves, at common law. But that is
mother question. As this is not q legal
rgument / win not pursue the subject
arther. Those who are curious to fol- =
wv it out win find a most satisfactory
iscussion Of the question BY the law e
rds Of England in the Mogul Steam =
nip Company vs. McGregor. Bowen, Il
/. j., quoting Lord Crompton, in that :.
ise states the proposition concisely in n
us language: No action at common !,
w will lie, or ever has lain, against n
ny individual or individuals for entering !.
TO contract merely because it is in =
'straint Of trade Also, that contracts
restraint Of trade are not illegal in
" sense except that the law will not .,
lforce them" .,