Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1904-10-14
LAW AND THE TRUSTS
sx : ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOX
REPLIES TO JUDGE PARKER
Bost Enainsnt Authority In the Conn
cry says There IL No Common Law
OF the United states that Furnishes
Remedy Against Monopoiies.

Judge Parker, in his letter OF accept
ance. said the common law affords
complete legal remedy against monopo-
lies. 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 G. 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
ds OF the tariff and other national ques-
lions.
Mr.. Knnx's Speech.
In a speech at Philadelphia. on the
night OF Oct /, Dir. Knox said:
I'm Judge Parker's speech TO the noti-
fieation committee when speaking OF the
trusts. he said: The common law as de
veloped affords complete legal remedy
against monopolles.'
SIN President Roosevet's letter of ne
ceptance, the President said: There is
no common law of the United States
Judge Parker's letter Of acceptance,
citing a case, rejoned that The Supreme
Court decided that coinmon-law princi-
piles could be applied by United States
courts in cases involving interstate com
merce in the absence of United States
statutes specifically covering the cass.
Such is the law of the land
.Of these three propositions the last
two are sound. The first Is not. Judge
rarker's statement that the common law
furnishes a complete legal remedy
against monopolies must like all other
general statements. be considered in con
nection with the subject OF which ii Is
pradicated The Judge was discussing
tr,ists and the people wanted to know
how interstate commerce could be pro-
tecte1 against restraints and monopo-
lies The Republican party thought it
could only be 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
complete'--note the word'a complete
degal 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 com
| plete. or, | may add. even an incom-
plete legal remedy against restraints and
monopoles.
Judge Parker's rejoinder to this was
either intended to mislead the people or
DIE does not know what the case to which
ne refers decides or what the rule of the
common law is as to combinations in re-
etraint Of trade. | prefer to think the
latter is the correct explanation.
Case Cited by Parker.
"The case to which he refers decides
simply that as between parties who are
Hhreshing out their differences in law
suit in the United States Court the rules
LOT the common law will be applied by the
|United States Courts, when Il different
rule has not been supplied 10y United
States statute, and this is 50 though the
matter out OF which the controversy
arises relates to interstate commerce. as
II always has been in respect of other
matters. Specifically. the case decided
that a telegraph company was liable for
Manages for charging one newspaper
more for furnishing dispatches than it
charged another for the same service un-
Ter like circumstances. Judge parker's
lilaetic utterance that Such is the law
DC the land with which he concludes the
discussion of this point. is true, bnt no
more relevant than if he had announced
buy other indisputable legal proposition.
1.-The decision in the ease TO which he
Fefers does not mean what it is intended
he people should think ii means, namely,
hat the common law can prevent per-
tons from making combinations aud mon
bpolies 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
hot and never was unlawful ut common
law in any suoh sense as that the agree
|nant could be nullfied by public author
Mts or that persons not parties to it could
tustnin an action against ii for damages.
takes statute law to confer such rem
dies. and the President is clearly right
IA saying There is no common law Of
The United States for any such purpose
Parties to an agreement in restraint
N trade cannot enforce them, as between
themselves, at common law. But that is
Auother question. As this is not a legal
argument | will not pursue the subject
durther. Those who are curious to fol-
Pw il out will find a most satisfactory
discussion of the question by the law
birds of England in the Mogul Steam
ship Company vs.. McGregor. Bowen,
IL. j., quoting Lord Crompton. in that
CASE states the proposition concisely in
This language: No action at common
law will lie, or ever has lain, against
any individual or individuals for entering
into a contract merely because it is in
festralnt Of trade Also that contracts
10 restraint of trade are not illegal in
any sense except that the law will not