The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-16
HEAVY BLOW TO THE TRUSTS Sweeping Decision in Tobacco Case. ATTRACTS WIDE INTEREST Tendency of Courts to cOnstrus
 Statutes. >traint of Trade, Boycotts and cOer- eioa are Reviewed--HiEhest
 Court of Land win
 Pass On It.

attracting WldespTedu dtteHelon iH usiness circles and among members the legal profession who have given pecial attention to the trust question, ot SO mneh for it's immediate effect n the allied tobacco interests, but lore particularly for It's scope and ef- ect upon all classes of industrial com inations engaged in interstate trafie.
 An appeal of this decision to the Uni- ed State Supreme Court is now in ac- i've process of preparation by counsel En~she case.
 There has been a series of Judicial interpretations of the sherman act, both in the Federal Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court, but the consensus of opinion Is that the recent decision in the tobacco case gives 2 denniteness and scope of Interpretation far beyond any judicial utteranees heretofore made.
 The full text of the decision dis closes. in the language of the judges the gradual development of judicial in- depreciation of the law up to the pres ent time. Judge Coxe, one of the con- curing judges. stating that since the Knight case (against the sugar refin- eries1 the tendency has been constant ly toward wider scope of the stat utes."
 The Knight case was tn eirst under the sherman act to reach the Su- prene Court. It was decided in Jan uary. 1895, and held in substance that < the combination of q number of refin- cries to manufacture sugar was not alone is not commerce and therefore not within the control of Congress.
 Conatruction og Statutes.
 An examination Of the numerous de- eisfons since the Knight case leads to the conclusion, Judge Cox says. that there has been general tendency to- wards a broader ard more liberal cons struction of the statutes. Tn the Northern Securities case the opinion reviews all of the prior decisions and formulates certain propositi s. Some of thess were as follows:
 'sThe antitrust act embraces and declares to be illegal every contract combination or conspiracy, in whatever form, of whatever nature and whoever may be the parties to 1t, winch direct, ly or neSessarily operates in restraint of interstate or international trade or commerce. The act is not limited to unreasonable restraints but embraces all direct restraints" gs' In the case of Loew vs. Lawlers the bnited States Supreme Court held the Slierman act applicable to members of a labor organization who, by means of a boycott, were endeavoring to destroy the business of manufacture of hats. Comparing the foregoing trust decis- ions with that recently gicen in the tobacco case shows the development which has occurred in the application of the Sherman act. Judge LaCombe in his majority opinion defines the status Of the law today as follows:
 'Disregarding various dicta and fol- lowing the several propositions which have been approved by successive ma 5ority of the Supreme Court, this lan- ia "a structed as prohibiting any contract or combination whose direct effect is to prevent the free play of competition and thus tend to deprive the country of the services of any number of inde- pendent dealers, however small. As thus construed the statute Is revolu- tionary. By this 1t is not intended to imply that the construction is incor- rect. The act may be termed revolu- tionary because, before its passage the courts had recognized a restraint of trade which was held not to be unfair but permissible although 1t operated in some measure to restrain competi- ton.
 By insensible degrees, under the op- eration of many causes, business, man. ufacturing and trading alike, have more and more developed a tendency towards larger and larger aggregations of capital and more extensive combin- ations of individual enterprise. It is contended that under existing condi- tions. in that way only. can production be increased and cheapened, new mar kets opened and developed, stability ir reasonable prices secured and indus. trial progress assured But every Af- Rregation of individuals or cCrpol 9. tions, formerly independent, Imme. diately upon its formation terminltel an existing competition, whether ol not some other competition may sub ssquently arise.
 ''The act as above construed prohib It's every contract or combine in re straint of competition. Size is noi made the test: two individuals whC have been driving rival express wag ons between villages in two coutingu GUS States who enter into a combine to join forces and operatsS a singl1 restrain an existing competition and i would seem to make little difference whether they make such combine more effective by forming a partnership ol not.
 'sWhat benefits may have come from this combine. or from others com plained of, it is not material to in Quire, nor need subsequent business methods be considered. or production or prices.
 MomentOus Litigation.
 The advance of judicial interpreta- fion of the Sh erman act was also dealt with by Judge Moves, who concurre6 with Judge LeCombe in the tobacco de eIslon.
 Speaking of the momentous charae- ter of the present trust litigation, Judge Moves says:
 Tt is of much importance to main. tain pfople at the present time WI etnel the defendants have entered into ar unlav ful comf inc. It Is of the mos mouentous importance to all the peo pie for all time whether the nationa Government has power to reach indus trial combinations dealing across Stat. lines.
 "Concede that the present statut, goes too far: concede even that no en actments are now necessary, you mus agree that conditions may arise in tht future requiring legislative actiol which shall be both uniform and ef fective. Congress alone could talk such action. and if this case shall in ally establish that the power exists il Congress to take it, then regardless o ell other results, 1t is a good thing fo the future of this country that thesi proceedings were instituted"
 As to the general character of com binations coming ithin the law. Judg, Moves saws further:
 "The construction of the statut 4anhAes the duty of this court withil