The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-08

concentration. in the hands OF few, Of
the absolute control Of the prices Of all
manufactured products.
History OF Statute.
The auti-trust sta atute was passed in
1890. and prosecutions were soon begun
under IL. In the case OF the United
States vs.. knight, known as the Sugar
Trust case, because or the narrow scope
Of the DleadiuGs, the combination sought
10 be cnjnined was held not to be in
cluded within the prohibition Of the act
because tho ayerments did not 90 be-
yond the mere acquisition OF manurac-
turing plants for the refining or sugar
snd did not include that OF direct and
merce in the sale and delivery of sugar
across state boundaries In foreign trade
The result of the sugar trust case was
not happy, in that it gave other com
psnies and orCs niZations seeking a Simi
lar method OF making profit by estah
fishing an absolute control and monopoly
in 4 particular line or manufacture u
sense Of immunity against prosecution
that jurisdiction is barred in respect TO
a business, which is necessarily COM
mcnsuratc with the boundaries nf the
country. no state prosecution Is able To
supply the needed ms chincry FOR adc
uuate restraint or punishment
Following the sugar trust decision. how
ever, there have come along in the slow
hut certain course of judicial DISPOSE
tion cases involving a construction Of the
antitrust statute and its application until
now they seem to embrace every phase
OF that law which can me pra acticalN pre-
scntsd 10 the American public and to the
government for action. They show that
the antitrust act has Wide scope and
applies 10 many combins tjons in actual
operation, rendering them unlawful and
subject 10 indictment and restraint
Question Of Construction.
The supreme court. in several of its
decisions. has declined to read into the
statute the word "unrca sonablc'' before
restraining OF restraint on tho ground
and docs not intend 80 leave TO tire court
the discretion 10 determine what is q
reasonable restraint OF trade The cN-
preston. restraint OF trade comes from
there were certain covenants Incidental
Ia the carrying out OF Il main or princi-
pal contract which We're said TO be
covenants in partial restraint OF trade.
and were held TO DC, nnfurcca bic because
reasonably adapted 20 the performance
Of the main or principal contract Ana
under the general language used by the
supreme court in several caues II would
seem that even such incidental covenants
In restraint OF interstate trade were with
I'm tie inhibition Of the statute and must
he condemned. In order to avoid such
result, | have thought and said that il
might he well TO amend the statute so
as TO exclude such covenants from It's
condcmna tion, 4 close eNamina ton of the
late decisions OF the court. however.
shows quite clearly in cases presontin.
the exact question. that such incidental
restraints of trade are held not to he
within the law and ave excluded by the
general statement that 10 he within the
statute the effect upon trade Of the re-
siraint, must be direct and not merely
Incidental, or indirect The necessity,
therefore. for an amendment OF the
statute so as to exclude these Incidental
and beneficial covenants in restraint of
trade. held in common lsw TO be reason.
able. does not exist.
Changes Unn ecessary.
In some opinions Of the federal Judges.
there have been intirnations having the
effect. IL sound. 10 weaken The force os
the statute by including within ts scope
absurd]S uDimportant combinations and
arrangements, aud suggesting. therefore
the wisdom OF changing It's language by
limiting it's applies tiops TO serious COM
bina tions with intent TO restrain eornpc-
titiou or control prices. 4 reading of
the opinions of the supreme court. how
ever. makes the change unnecessary. for
they exclude from The operation OF The
act contracts affecting Interstate trade
in but small and Incidental way. aud
apply The statute only 10 the real evil
aimed at by congress
The statute has been on the statute
books row for two decades and the su-
preIne court in more than a dozen opin-
ions. has constructed it In applica tion TO
various phases or business combinations
and in reference 10 YariouS subject mat
ters. II has applied 10 tho union under
ouc control OF two competing Interstate
railroads. 10 jpint traffic arrangements
between several interstate Ia lnroa0s: to
private manufacturers nngd Sod in a
plain attempt To control prices and SUP
press competition in a part of the coun-
try including a dozen states. and to
luAuy other combinations affecting; in
terstAte traffic, Tho value OF Il statute
which IL rendered moro and more certain !
in it's meaning by series of decisions