The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1908-12-02
The Sherman Act.

ever been so often referred to In
the public prints, or been so often
the subject of judicial decision and
construction as has been what is
commonly known as the Sherman
act.
It is made the subject of very
clear, able and instructive article
in the last number of one Of the
leading magazines, and the i'm
portance Of the law, its far-reach-
ing effect, and the fact that it has
withstood repeated legal assaults,
gives it peculiar interest and i'm
portance.
Many misconceptions exist in the
popular mind about the law.
Many doubtless think inasmuch as
it deals with questions of such
great Importance it must be very
long and elaborate piece of legisla-
tion, but it is not.
On the contrary, it is one Of the
briefest and most pointed laws ever
enacted by congress; albeit it is
most comprehensive, it contains on
| ly about TOO words.
There is no circumlocution about
it, but in the first three lines, with
out any modification, it declares
illegal every contract, combination
in the form of trust or otherwise,
or conspiracy in restraint of trade
or commerce among the several
states or with foreign nations. As
an example of multum in parvo
those three lines lead the field. 1t
covers all kinds of offenders not
some, but all; not a part, but every
one.
The interstate commerce act was
passed in 1887, preceding the Sher-
man act by nearly three years, but
the latter supplied a need which
the first did not attempt to meet.
Again and again the greatest
lawyers in America have trained
their batteries of learning and ar
gument and eloquence against the
Sherman act, but it has withstood
every assault, and the supreme
court has sustained the great law
yers who were responsible for. its
enactment. Some of the miscon-
ceptions concerning the law are
these:
First-That the law was rushed
through congress. whereas, though
Senator Sherman introduced his
first antitrust act in August, 1888,
the present statute did not finally
become & law until July, 1890. In
the meantime, the bill as introduc-
ed was debated and amended and
redrafted by such lawyers as George
F. Edmunds, George F. Hoar,
George Nray and James 2. George,
a quartette of lawyers which prob
ably could not be matched in the
United States today.
Another misconception is that it
was passed by the Republicans over
the opposition of the Democrats.
The Republican platform ignorant
ly so declares, whereas there was
no opposition, only one senator vot-
ing against it in the senate, while
there were 242 votes for it and none
against it in the house.
Again, people naturally suppose
the law was in the main the work
of Mr. Sherman, but such is not
the case. Senator Edmunds oppos-
ed an amendment offered by Sena-
tor Sherman, and when the senate
refused to adopt the amendment the
whole question Of trust legislation
was referred back to the judiciary
committee, of which Senator Ed
tmunds was chairman. All the
various bills, of which there were
five or more, were pitched into the
waste basket and Senator Edmunds
is chiefly responsible for the "Sher-
man act, his most active asso-
ciates being Senators George and
Hoar.
Another misconception is that
the act was not intended to apply
to labor organizations. Mr.. Com
lpers has expressed that view, but
the record shows he is mistaken,
Chief Justice Fuller Of the supreme
court of the United States said in g
recent decision: The records Of
congress show that several efforts
were made to exempt by Legislation
organizations Of farmers and labor
lers from the operation of the aci
and that all these efforts failed =
| The amendment which Senator
Edmunds opposed was one to that
Ieffect, and he did so on the grounc
that it granted rights to labor
which it withheld from capital
He said it was not just or constitu.
ltional to forbid dealers in or manu-
lfacturers of iron, for instance, tc
form a combination to fix prices,
land allow the laborers, by combin.
ling to fix prices in the whole re-
lpublic, to increase the price Of
iron If one side, he said, is au
| thorized to combine, then the othel
side must have the same right
This logic was inexorable and IN
Ivincible.
| The force and result is seen il
the late Danbury hatters' case, il
which the supreme court of ths
United States held that a boycoti
was violation Of the Sherman act
This decision has reused strons
opposition in the ranks of labor
land legislation to neutralize it hal
lbeen imperatively demanded.
| Such legislation will have tht
leffect to legalize the boycott