Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1906-12-09

Court have shed much light unon the
meaning of the words used In the Inv
to express the acts prohibited. yet the
exact limits of the meaning Of ''re-
straints" and ''monopolization" have
not been aScertuined with precision.
Moreover, although the conception of
commerce among the States and with
foreign nations is well defined. It's ap.
plication to the complex conditions OF
business may often raise questions
whether given transactions are foreign
or Interstate trade. which are not easy
OF solution. One main purpose of the
law that competition shall not by agree:
mentS be supprest, runs counter To the
tendencies of modern business. The
Department OF Justice is without or.
ganizatlon for the investigation OF
susnccted offenses. though the gen
ernl appropriation for the enforcement
OF this and laws OF like character
| made by Congress In 1908 has to some
extent supplied this deficiency New
ertheleSS II Is true, In the main, that
proceedings instituted by the depart.
| inent have had their origin either In II
complaint by some Interested person
or in tho investigation OF some other
department of the government. These
rensons--the uncertainty ofthe mean.
ing OF the law, its conflict with the
tendencies of business. and the INSULT
cheney of the means of detecting Of
fenses--have made it's enforcement
slow and difficult. and obedience TO it's
provisions far from universal. From
the date of the enactment Of the law
to the beginning Of President ROosc.
volts Administration in 1901. tG pro-
cccdings Were begun and have been
concluded-5 of them were indct.
ments. in all of which the government
failed, and of them were petitions in
equity, in which the government pre-
vailed I'm and failed in 3.
In the course OF this litigation it has
been made clear by the decisions of
the Supreme Court
CD That the law is constitutional.
t2) That Il combination of manufac.
turers to restrain or monopolize man.
ufacture or production which only in
cidentally and indirectly affected inter
state commerce was not within the
prohibition of the act because not n
restraint or mOnopoliZatiOn of inter-
state commerce.
go That combination of manufuc-
turers fixing prices and suppressing
competition in, the sale of their pro
duets in interstate commerce was for
hidden by the act
tD That Il combination among com
pcting interstate railways by which
rates and fares are established and
maintained is forbidden by the law. al
though the rates in themselves may
not he unreasonable of excessive.
Since the beginning of President
Rooscvclts administration twenty
three proceedings have been begun I'M
der this law, seven of which have been
concluded and sixteen are pending.
Ten of the proceedings were indict-
ments and thirteen petitions in
equity. In the seven proceedings CON
| cluded the government has prevailed
These proceedings We're as follows:
% combination between two com
! petlns Interstate railways, whereby u
majority of the stock of each was
taken over by II holding compay In
exchange for shares OF its own stock
nj an agreed valuation, with the pur-
pose and effect that the two railways
and management and that competition
between then should be suppressed,
was held to be unlawful and dissolved
bv Supreme Court In the case of tho
Northern Securities Company V, Unit.
J ed States.
| ta) y combination between various
individuals and corporations engaged
IN the business Of purchasming live
stock, converting it into fresh meat,
| and selling the products in interstate
commerce whereby competition both
In the purchase of live stock and In
the sale of meat was supprest, was de-
clared unlawful and enjoined by tho
Supreme Court in the case of Swift G.
! Co, ct al. V. United States.
| '3. a combination between manu-
! factnrers of paper used for newspapers
supplying the territory between Chi
cago and the Rocky Mountains where
ny tho territory was divided. prices
'lXed, and competition supprest. was
declared to be unlawful and enjoined
| D! me circuit court Of the Eighth Cir
Gun IN me case of United States v.
General Paper Company ct ais.
| (4) combination between tho re-
tan grocehs of Alaska fixing prices
ana suDDressing competition was de-
clhred unlawful and enjoined by tle
| United States Court for thu Second
DIVISION or Alaska in the case uf
united States V. Nome Retail Groc-
ers' Association.
lo) "a combination Of persons and
| corporations engaged in manufacture
ing ana selling elevators in the Pa
cllc States was declared unlawful and
enjoined by the United States Circuit
Court for the Northern District of
California in the case of United States
V. Otis Elevator Company ct al.
| t6) a combination of manufacturers
and dealers in silt whereby CONNIE.
tion in the sale ~ that commodity in
inc state west q$the Rocky Mountains
was suppressedwwas declared unlaw.
iul and enjoined by Circuit Court OF
me United States for the Northern
1lsrtict of California in the case nf