Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1908-10-14
An Argument for the Repeal of
the Antitrust Law
(BY GEORGE DARIEN)

lowing propositions: l. There can De
no industrial progress In country
where capitalists are deferred from
making investments, and manufactur'
ers discouraged from extending their
operations BY fesr Of hostile legisla'
ton; Q. The prosperity Of a country
| In which the laboring classes are dis.
contented rests upon very precarious
foundation.
I hold that the chief responsibility
for the confused state Of affairs in
which this nation is now laundering
Is chargeable to the Sherman antitrust
law. AS long as it remains on the
statute book 1t is constant menace to
the interests of both cepital and labor.
1t is not only an obstruction in the
path of industrial enterprise and peace
full prosperity;it is palpable invasion
of the ccmmon.law rights OF every class
of producers. Let me put my argu-
ment in the, shape Of syllogism.
My major premise Is: ANY statute
that needlessly contravenes the princi-
pies Of the common law should be re-
probated With emphasis on the word
"needlessly," this proposition Is self
evident.
NV minor premise--that the Sher-.
man antitrust law is a needless and
mischievous contravention Of common
law principles-requires proof. This II
now undertake.
1t was observed by philosopher OF
old: "A nation may lose its liberties
in q day, and not miss them In CEN
fury" In this age Of the world, affairs
move go rapidly that it will require
much less than century for Americans
to discover that they lost their liber-
ties, seventeen years ago, when the
Sherman antitrust law was enacted.
Indeed, many of US are already con-
WINGED Of the painful truth that we
cannot now boast OF living in THE
land of the free" We confess with
sadness that ours Is no longer the
best government under the sum-"
notwithstanding the monarchical
and aristocratic features OF the En-
glish Constitution, there Is far less In
reference with the personal liberties
Of the subjects of King Edward than
there is with the subjects of our King
Theodore. On the English statute
book there has been nothing like our
antitrust law since the 18th reign OF
George III-that Is. since 1772.
Before giving the history Of British
leglslatisn on the subject Of monoplies
"a history that may teach us several
val liable lessons L will show the rele-
vancy OF that history to the common
law rights of American citizens by
quoting the Ninth Amendment of the
Constitution Of the United States,
which reads thus: 1.-THE enumeration
in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not bs construed to deny or dis
parage others retained by the people. "
What are these ''other rights" which
are not enumerated in the written con-
stitutiop9 Plainly. they must be the
common law rights which the Ameri-
can colonlsts possessed as British sub
jects prior to July 4th, 1776. When
the colonists declared themselves lab
solved from all allegiance to the British
Gro wn," the parliamentary statutes OF
the mother country were no longer
binding upon the free and indepen-
dent States" that had dissolved all
political connection between them and
the State of Great Britain; but they
still held all the rights to which they
were entitled under the common law
Of England, inasmuch as the malnte-
nance of those rights was the very
PURPOSE vi Lucll LoVOlC.
So let US inquire what was the coIn-
mon law In England as regards memo
poles at the time Of the American Rev
olution. That would be the law in
America tUday,if we had never enacted
any legislation OF the subject.
AS the result of our Investigations,
we shall find that from the English
point OF view our Sherman ami trust
law, proiessedly directed against com
binations In restraint of trade" is it.
self restraint of trade. We shall find
that from the year 1772 (the 18th year
OF George IT'D to 1874, (the 7th year of
Queen Victoria,J monopolies in the
business of selling articles Of prime ne
cessity in Great Britain could be re-
strained bv an action at common law.
Thus we establish our contention that
the American anti trust law is needless.
A monopoly in the business OF selling
articles Of luxury does no harm to the
general public, for nobody is obliged to
purchase such articles il the price is
higher than he is willing to pay; and q
monopoly that obtains All unreasonable
price for articles of necessity can be
prosecuted at common law.
AS to the mischief done by legisla-
tive restraints of trade, American leg
islators ought to consider the reasons
assigned by the English for the repeal
of the whole host Of statutes on the sub
ject which had been enacted prior to
the 18th year OF George III. The final
legislation on the subject Tin the 18th
year Of Queen Victoria) permitted at
! fannie IN obtain "a m0nonolv evan in