The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-02
The proof Is at 20 dc ler's.

ocably,. fixed tas. indeed. L. had been BY
unanimous Democratic opposItion4 and that
~ am Sos assseloaias tSs wisdom Q, Judge t,s
Parkers decision from the standpoint OF hls
o 81 nc
sure 1t would have been 70 the party 2 reat
sdyantsse to have irs1hEy sckPoTlSSdIIs
policy Of sound money, as, they have been
other policies OF the Republican party time
There has been plenty of Democratic hero;
ism manifested upon this question or so,ind
BY the hers
in 1903 may have, done % not Comprehend;
again sGaGa sc S dd :. 1n sS %sn csG
he ,preIerred, tho success Of bis psrty to ths
Tsts q 70 es GSsHHTsa sras Of
comparatively simple economic problem.
COMMON LAW AND TRUSTS.
In Judge Parkers speech 10 the notihca-
ss ss sH"SSs s s sosmcS % q
affords 2 complete legal remedy against
ne e ss ss sers 81 no cont
mon law Of the United States" ,.,
ydse edeS sr shs sapss%s ec onf
Sc applied DIS BY Tni!ed States courts + cases
senoe OF United States statutes specifically
Gi cover the case Such Is the law OF the
sound meg The frst G Z not Judge parEers
statement that the common law furnishes a
S %as ike e III ot tss%esy san
considered in connection with the subject OF
which i Is pre- di,a,ed. The Judge vas "a s6 die,
how interstate commerce could be projected
against restraints and monopoliee, The re.
psof ana shSusn the
bS by the hSs' e aH.s Sfen con
aS sss so Sdsse tom rt mnoie ths Sord@a
complete legal remedy; - ...
. r ne sS%m9S s~ If the s'Ey .es'
means there lie no common law OF the United
States that furnishes complete. Or. nay
add, even an Incomplete legal remedy against
restraints and monopolies
Judge Parker's Ieioinder to this vas sc, either
to the Se he
cides or what the rule Of the conon law is as
to combinations in restraint OF trade. pre-
fer 10 think the latter is the correct exphha-
The case to which he refers decides simply
that as between parties who are thrr4shiing
s1f'f Be .Gg5 IS 'Ss ussd s's;ss soaTs
piled by United States statute. and
this is so. though the matter out OF which
the controversy arises relates 10 interstate
commerce, as II always has been In respect
OF other matters. Specifically the case de-
cided that telegraph company was liable
for dana ges for charging one newspaper
more for furnishing dispatches than "
charged another for the same service under
Ike oircurnsta nees. Judge Parkers diSdaoJste
with which he concludes the discussion Of thiis
point. is true. but no more relevant than n
he had announced any other indisputable
The decision In the case to which he refers
does not mean what 1t IL intended the people
should think 1t means. namely. that the COM
mon law can prevent persons from making
con bina, ions and monopolies IN restraint Of
interstate commerce and that the United
States could proceed AZ ainst them at common
law.
An agreement In restraint Of trade Is not
and never was unlawful at common law IN
any such sense as that the agreement could
be nuilihed by public authority or that per-
sons not parties to IL could sustain an action
against IL for DAMAGES. IL takes statute law
to confer such remedies, and the President
is clearly right In saying, There Is no common
law OF the United States" for any such pur-
pose. =, ,-
As said In the BEGINNING, the people are
now engaged in the solemn business OF CON-
sidering where they shall choose They
know the difference between experience and
inexperience In public men. They know the
potency Of influence with ineNperienced
public servants, and they know how to SYM
pathize with but avoid reputable candidate
whose political ntimacies are VIGOROUSLY