New-York tribune., 1906-12-09
GOVERN MENTLAW WORK
fR. MOODY'S REPORT.
Success Secured in Railroad and
Rebate Cases.

States to the place appointed by the Constitution
io y ans annaI renat for 1865 ana Content myss
With referring 70 that report and renewing ne rec
law which VIII provide in substance that where an
stst.. the iSSe Of that court may after certifying
that ne has examined the indictment ana Is OF the
STATES and after the District Attorney has certi-
nsd that IN his there Is RToosSe cause nd To
warrant for the arrest OF the defendants wherever
the United States. At the present time there are
pending on the docket OF the Supreme Court four
renew the recommendation made in my last
annual report for the enactment'of law giving 10
the United States the right OF appeal upon ques-
lions Of law in criminal cases. with the proylso
s he ses sse % 6 roaress has 1assed such
law for the District Of Columbia, and II is the law
been several Instances showing the great public
necessity for the enactment Of such law The he in IN
sbe result Of tnvestieations which had been made
throughout the country by the Department Of Jus
tice was rendered practically useless by the ruling
Se II e eoeeesS @ df Wh the department ne W would
have been very slad 10 have placed under the re-
The aot approved June / 1888. which provided
section. made st a penal offence for a carrier TO
count OF his membership in a labor organization
OF 10 attempt TO prevent him from obtaining
ployment after his discharge. A demurrer to an
Indictment under this section has been sustained
section IS unconstitutional Even a United States
commissioner has made the same decision. II IS
OF the Senate. the House of Representatives and
the President can be nuhed by the opinion of
single man. not subject 10 review by the Court OF
Appeals and the Supreme Court
TJas % ~ s1Ts Io t,aa m appear @ hss Pessed the the
reported IN the Senate. II IT speedily becomes a
be prevented. Not only the public interests will
PENDANTS themselves n IS the f9ent o noe NOT fb
usual, practice OF judges sitting nisi prius to
government for the very reason that the defend
ant has the right Of appeal, while the government
this conmendahle practice If each party had the
ruling upon a demurrer TO an Indictment might
oIten settle the only real question IN dispute be
OF trial OF the facts. ard such ruling might be
much more readily made If both parties had the
right Of appeal
GOVERNMENT APPEALS IN CUSTOMS CASES
In the customs administrative act Of June TO-
1so It was provided in Section 10 that the de-
cison Of the circuit court IN customs cases should
that the question involved is OF such Importance
as 10 require review of such decision by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in which case
said circuit court or the judge making the decision
peal 70 said supreme Court: but an appeal shall
ever the 9ttor T 3 eeeTal 0i I aIi a f n tin
thirty days after the rendition OF such decision
vision was modihed, in Section s 50 as to provide
laws should be final in the circuit court Of
appeals. subject however. 10 review on cerdorar1
In view Of the fact that, from the point Of view
OF the government 3 customs case involving a
ilsr cases which II controls involve large aggre-
Thiie from tie point OF view of the Importer only
one or comparatively . few cases are affected and
purposely intended give review rs a matter of
bera ehd 70 sbo15 fms ee a appea II IS not TO 6
presumed IN customs cases any moe than IN othsr
litigation that the government would take need
less O improvident appeals to the Supreme Court
as Trequentiy customs cases lh'SiFf & 'Z nZZo[ M
small amounts. concern some important principle Of
Ion rr~nT,1d IN
eminent the right 10 take such cases 10 the Su-
preme Court OF the United States as matter OF
Under existinr. law any nnal judgment. Or decree
lumbia, where the matter dispute exceeds the
sum Of $ co. IS apgeaab!e TO the suPGene &C Court n
the District Of Columbia there should be broader
TIE courts Of the states or the inferior courts of
the United States. ] recommend that the law he
OF Appeals Tor the District Of Columbia shall he
substantially cooxteusve with the right of appeal
from the several circuit courts Of appeal.
IN compliance with its resolution on June %. 1906.
oeedings fnsti}u'e6 by the De1artnent Of justice
under the sherman Antitrust law, the Interstate
was printed as Senate Document No 626. 59th Con
begun since then. and some Of the cases then pend
sng have been disposed Of Il seems appropriate 10
the statenen abre7iafing II IN some respects and
enlarging II in Others.
UNDER SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW.
The act entitled An act to protect trade and
commerce against unlawful restraints and monOpo-
isw s6Bra,ed 0sy S E9% @ r. t has rnare9 and r
oeived much Interpretation by the courts but
yet Unsettled. The law dealing with the interstate
and foreign commerce prohibits 1aD agreements in
.suitlat % tla'le OF 'DI %
TO monopollze any part OF trade or commerce.
any part of trade commerce. Although de
cisions OF the supreme Court have shed ue6 lieht
upon the meaning OF the words used IN the law
Of the meaning Of restraints and 'nlonopoza-
ton" have not been asceTtained with precision.
Moreover although the conception Of commerce
defined: its application 10 the complex conditions
given transactions are foreign or Interstate trade
which are not easy OF solution. one main purpose
,nents be suppressed runs counter TO the tendeu-
cles Of modern business The Department OF JUS
pr5atioB for the enforcement Of this and laws Of
i,e ciarer+er made nv Cro.gress in 1qs2 bss -
some extent supplied this dehciency- Nevertheless
s. is true, in the main that proceedings instituted
by the department have had their origin either IN
oolnPlaht 10y some some tilsi t elS .. III me
investigation OF some other department OF TIE gov
ernment These reasOns-the uncertainty Of the
Of business and The ffsIfiriency of the means oS
detecting offences-have made its enforcement slow
from universal From the dste Of he tnactmeat
OF the law 10 tie begi1uing OF President Roose-
were begun and have been Concluded; five Of them
were indictments. in. all Of which the government
failed. and eleven Of them petitions in equity.
IN which The government prevailed in eight and
u he course q this litigation It has been made
clear by me decisions of the uDreme Court
~ That the law Is constitutional.
% That combination Of manufacturers 10 re-
strain mOnOpoIZe manufacture production
which only incidentally and indirectly affected in
ferstate commerce not within the prosaibfton
Of the act because not a restraint monopoiza-
fion Of interstate commerce
C3l That combination OF manufacturers fixing
prices and suppTessing competition IN the sale OF
their products in Interstate commerce was for
b!dden BIZ the act.
~ That a combination among competing inter
state railways by which rates and fares estab-
lished and rnairtained IS forbidden 10y the law al
though the rates ia themselves may be unrea-
- ri