Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-09-21

the antitrust law. While we have not
threshed the whole matter out so as to
reach a definite conclusion. am
strongly inclined to the view that the
wav to make the antitrust law more
effective. is narrow its scope some
what so that it will not include IN lts
prohibition and denunciation as
crime anything but conspiracy or
combination or contract entered INTO
with actual intent to monopolize or
suppress competition In interstate
trade.
"At the common law all contracts In
restraint of trade. except those which
were called reasonable, the courts
would decline to enforce. The anti
trust law denounces such contracts
when in restraint of interstate trade as
criminal, whether made with intent to
monopolize or to suppress competl-
ton or without intent to do either.
1.-The theory seemed to be that
contract in restraint of interstate trade
tended to a monopoly and therefore
should be denounced because OF its
tendency, whether there was any ac-
tual purpose on the part of the person
making it to monopolize or suppress
competitor or not.
"Ths feature of the present anti
trust law has, it seems to me. weak
ened its force because it has seemed
to bring within the condemnation OF
the law contracts and other arrange
ments which were actually innocent IN
their character and which were not
included in those various cOmblna-
tions which it was the real intent OF
the law to suppress. If the crimes de-
nounced in the law were confined to
combinations, conspiracies and con-
contracts made with intent to monop-
olizc or partially monopolize interstate
trade, or to suppress competition IN
interstate trade, then the real object
of tho law would come within its de-
nunciation and no one could declare
is opinion to be unreasonable in that
lit included a lot of innocent contracts
or arrangements.
ut has been suggested that the law
ought to limit its denunciations to
those contracts in restraint of trade
that are unreasona BILE. 1 do not favor
any such limitation. 1t seems to be
pIop'SCu " lCoNC " IIC Jou6NS " w
eide what combinations and contracts
in restraint of trade ought to be per-
mitted to exist and to be enforced on
general grounds of public policy-in
other words, to have the court attempt
to establish some lines between what
are called good and bad trusts, as if
the suppression of competition in some
cases was a good thing and in other
cases was bad. l cannot agree that
that any such distinction can be prop
erly made.
"All combinations to suppress COM
potion, or to maintain a monopoly in
whole or in part, of interstate trade
are and should be, in violation of the
antitrust law and should be punished
as such; and there is no room for the
expression-reasonable or unreasonable
in this general view of the statute.
IF the statute were limited to combi-
nations. conspiracies and contracts to re-
strain trade with intent to monopolize in
terstate trade, or with intent to sup
press competition therein. it would prob
ably not include within it denunciation of
the boycott against goods going into in
terstate trade. because such a boycott
is a restraint against interstate trade
with the intention to restrain it, but it is
rot a restraint of interstate trade with
intent to suppress competition or to main
tain a monopoly of the goods with respect
to which the contract is made.
Il am entirely opposed to excepting
from the operation of any law of general
application class of persons like labor
ers. workingmen or farmers or ministers
or teachers or lawyers. Take the present
antitrust law, therefore, and insert spe-
cial exception to the application of that
law by providing that it should not apply
t. the trade union class and it would be
legislation of the most vicious charac-
ter, but when you make the law apply
only to conspiracies seeking to suppress
competition or to monopolize trade, then
the labor boycott is probably not includ-
ed, simply because the statute would not
seem wide enough to include in it's scope
and this result is obtained without class
legislation at all.
Il am in favor of this change because
believe that the ordinary action in equi-
ty by injunction in any place where the
boycott is operative can effectively ac-
ccmplish all the purposes that ought to
be accomplished in the suppression of
such an evil.
"On the other hand to apply the anti
trust law for the purpose of suppressng
evils growing out of the labor organza-
tons is to take advantage against such
unlawful labor organizations of the lit
era! terms of a statute which proba bly,
was not intended to include that which
judicial construction could not avoid in
cluding within it's words.
1T would probably seem wise to es-
tablish an accusatory bureau in the de-
partment of justice to institute prosecu-
tons for violations of the interstate COM
merce law and the antitrust law, while
1t would be advisable to continue the bu-
reau of corporations, enlarging it's scope
somewhat, perhaps. to maintain the reg
istration of corporations and the investi-
CATION into their operation so far as in
terstate trade is concerned.
1T has been found most difficult to
separate the administration from the
quasijudicial functions of the interstate
commerce commission, but it is thought
that it would be wise to take away from
them in ri l,o