The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-16
SWEEPING INTERPRETATION OF
ANTITRUST LAW is SHOWN

NEW YORK, Nov. 15.-The sweeping
| character of the rate decision OF the
United States circuit court in declaring
| the American Tobacco company to be q
| combination In restraint Of trade is at
| tracing widespread attention in business
| circles and among members of the legal
| profession, who have given special atten-
| ton to the trust question, not so much
| for Its immediate effect on the allied to-
baceo interests, but more particularly for
| Its scope and effect upon all classes OF in
dustrial combinations engaged In inter-
to the United States supreme court is
now In active process OF preparation by
counsel In the case.
There has been a series of judicial in
terpretations Of the Sherman act, both in
| the federal court and in the United
States supreme court. but the consensus
OF opinion is that the recent decision In
the tobacco case gives q defniteness and
scope of Interpretation far beyond any ju-
diciaI utteranccs heretofore made. The
full text OF the decision now available.
shows the far-reaching nature of this lat
est exposition of the law, 1t also dis
closes In the language OF the judges. the
gradual development of judicial interpre-
Judge Coke, one of the concurrng judges,
stating that "since the Knight case
! against tho sugar refinery the pressure
| has been constantly toward wider scope
OF the statutes"
Widening Tendency.
The knight case was the first under
| the Sherman ect to reach the supreme
| court. It was decided in January. 1895,
and held in substance that combina-
| ton OF refineries to manufacture sugar
was not within the act. because manufac-
| ture alone is not commerce and therefore
not within control of congress. An eX-
animation OF numerous cases since the
Knight case leads to the conclusion.
Judge Coke says, that there has been a
| general tendency toward broader ana
more liberal construction of the statutes.
| In the Northern Securities case the opln-
ion reviews all former decisions and Tor
mulates certain propositions, Some of
! these were as follows
| ''The antitrust act embraces and de-
! clares to be illegal every contract COM
hination, or conspiracy. In Whatever iorrn,
of whatever nature, and whoever may
be the parties TO It, which directly or
| necessarily operates In restraint OF In
| terstate or international trade or COM
merce. The act Is not limited to unrea-
| sonable restraint, but embraces all direct
/ restraints,
Effect of Competition.
"The natural effect of competition Is
| TO increase commerce, and an agreement
whose direct effect is TO prevent this
| play OF competition restrains trade ana
| commerce, To vitlate such an agreement
| OF combination il is not necessary 70
prove a total suppression OF trade; IL Is
| only essential TO show that by its neces-
eary operation it tends to restrain in
| terstats or international trade. or com
merce, or tends TO create a n mGnopEIig SappI,.s
| the public Of the advantages that now
from free competition"
In the case Of Loew versus Lawler the
| United States supreme court held lhal
| the Sherman act was appllcaoie TO mem
| bers cf labor organization VINO by means
| of a boycott, were eDdeavoring 10 destroy
! the business OF a manufacturer or mats.
| The only distinction between the Knight
| case and the Loew-Lawler case is that
| in one the acts complained of Telatch 70
! the manufacture and sale OF susar; anu anu
| I'm the other To the manufacture and sale
OF hats
with that recently given In the t9oaSco
case shows the development which mas
! occurred In the application OF the Sher-
man act Judge Laconbe, In his ma :
jority opinion. defines the status OF tHe
| law as follows;
Broad Interpretation,
"Disregarding various dicta and follow.
Ing the several propositions Wnlen nav, '"
been approved by successive ma1orlty OF
the stIprene court, this language CSheE-
man act( Is to be construed as prohiplt-
ing any contract or comolnation i on, WIS, ,,Is,
of Connection, and thus tend To deprlN'
the country OF the services OF any num-
bcr of independent dealers. howeweL yoT,,. sli.
AS thus construed the statute is reV9l.'
tionarv BY this 1t is not 1ntenoed 70 III, III
IL 1b6t the construction Is Incorrect Ih'
-, ,,,ay.bc termed revolutionary DecauS'
I ifs massage the courts had recognize,
:. rnstrnint OF trade. which was helu no
n he unfair, but permissible; dltbouGn !, ,
operated in some measure 10 iee'"'i
competition. -, ,,,, o,ora,
"Tsv inscnsible degrees. under inc opera
tlon of many causes. business Hanuiacl
urIng aud trading alike nave ntorG an alI'
more developed u tendency toWaiIiss "a ,,, g.
aud larger agGresations OF cApttIi ~, ~
Tiore extensive combinations OF lndiVidus
enterprises. ..o. ,,,,7,, o>,IstIns con
dit,ons in that way only can producuor
he Increased and cheapened; new fnhIke.
onens6 and developed. ataolIlty IN Icasoi
| able priccs occurred and indpstrIb! PIos
Tsss assured But every asgreSaton q
individuals or corporations iormeriy IN, IN
dependcnt. Immediately 1pon It's inritintap tl'
tormjnptes an existing conpct,t.pIi
yybntncr or not some other competition
ma subsequently arise. ,,,.t,
eth. act as above construed pIonipi.s :
eycry contract or combine IN Tesu All,
Of c6rnpctition. Size is not nade tns tgs.
two individuals who have peer NV n.IE' 4
rival express wagons between .Iltaets a.
two contiguous states. VINO enter i',G W
combine to join forces ana oPsi o,,,,et, in,
. ,,Ie line restrain an existing comp, - ~
Eva e. would seenl to make httle olitrr
rnco whether they make such coInnHl
rnore effcctlyc by forming partnership
| not.
} Benefits Do Not Count
"yyhat benefits may have con,e i,oI tror
,hI- combine or from others cpupia-p.
oI. II ia not material TO inquire i'o' is'