The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-11-16
COURT HAS NO
DISCRETION
IN THE MATTER
Continued from Page l..

ened. new markets opened and devel-
Oped stability in reasonable prices Sc
cured and industrial progress assured
/ But every aggregation of individuals or
I corpora tons formerly Independent. nm
mediately upon it's formation terminates
an existing competition; whether or not
some other competition may subsequent
ly arise.
1.-The act as above construed prohibits
every contract or combine in restraint of
competition. Size is not made the test
two individuals who have been driving
rival express wagons between villages IN
two contiguous states, who enter into
combine 10 join forces and operate a sin
gle line restrain an existing competition
and il would seem to make little differ
ence whether they make such combine
more effective by forming a partnership
or not
Benefits Not Considered.
What benefits may have come from
this combine or from others complained
of. Il is not material 20 Inquire. nor need
subsequent business methods be consid-
cred: or production or prices
The advance of judicial Interpretation
OF the sherman act was also dealt with
by Judge Moves, who concurred with
Judge Lacombe IN the tobacco decision:
Speaking of the momentous character OF
present trust litigation, Judge Noyes
says
TT is Of much Importance to many
people at the present time whether the
defendants have entered into an unlaw-
full combine. 1t is of the most mOmentouS
Importance 10 all the people for all time
whether the national government has
power to reach industrial combines deal
ing across state lines Concede that the
present statute goes too far, cOncede
even that no enactments are now neces-
sary; you must agree that conditions may
arise in the future requiring legislative
action which shall be both uniform and
effective. Congress alone could take such
action, and il this case shall finally estab-
lish that the power exists in congress to
take 1t, then, regardless of all other re
suits. II is a good thing for the future of
this country that these proceedings were
instituted"
Duty of the Courts.
As to the general character of com
bines coming within the law, Judge Noyes
says further;
THE construction of the constitution
confines the duty of this court within
very narrow limits. We have only to
inquire whether the evidence shows he
combine restricting competition. There is
no necessity for going further. Other in
quiries are immaterlal. The combine may
not increase the prices charged TO con-
sumers: may not seek 10 exclude all 9TH
ers from the field; may be free from CO.
ercion; may be free from oppression: yet
is II in restraint of competition? Does it
restrain trade reasonably or unreason-
ably. 1t falls within the statute. The
statute declares unlawful every combine
in restraint of trade. 1t contains no
words of limitation or qualification and
the supreme court of the United States
has decided that the courts have no
right to attach them TO it,"
The appeal of the tobacco case to the
United States supreme court is expected
10 give the highest tribunal further OppOr-
tunity to pass upsn the far-reaching APP
pllcation of the antitrust law. Announce
ment of the proposed appeal has been
made and the appeal will be officially
taken as soon as the decree is formally
entered. An early decision in the higher
court is anticipated because of the pro
vision of the federal law advancing ap-
peals in such cases.