Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1910-01-13

thrust statute and it's application, I'M
til now they seem to embrace every phase
of that law which can be practically pre-
scented to the American public and to
the government for action. They show
that the antitrust act has a wide scope
and applies to many combinations in
actual operation, rendering them unlaw-
full and subject to indictment and re-
straint.
Amendment Unnecessary.
The supreme court In several of its
decisions, has declined to read into the
statute the word unreasonable" before
restraint of trade on the ground that
the statute applies to all restraints and
does not intend to leave the court the
discretion to determine what is reason
able restraint of trade. The expression
restraint of trade comes from the COM
mon law, and at common law there were
certain covenants incidental to the car
rying out of main or principal con-
tract which were said TO be covenants In
partial restraint of trade and We're held
to be enforcible because reasonably"
adapted to the performance of the main
or principal contract, and under the
general contract, and under the general
language used by the supreme court in
several cases, it would seem that even
such incidental covenants in restraint
of interstate trade were within the in
hibition of the statute and must be con-
demned.
In order to avoid such result have
thought and said that it might be well
to amend the statute so as to exclude
such covenants from its condemnation.
close examination of the later decisions
of the court however, shows quite clear
ly in cases presenting the exact ques-
ton, that such incidental restraints of
trade are held not to be within the law
and are excluded by the general state
ment that, to be within the statute, the
effect upon the trade of the restraint
must be direct and not merely inciden-
tai or indirect The necessity, therefore,
for an amendment of the statute so as
to exclude these incidental and bene-
fetal covenants in restraint of trade held
in common law to be reasonable, does not
exist.
In some of the opinions of the federal
circuit Judges, there have been intima-
tons having the effect if sound, to
weaken the force of the statute by in
| Guiding within it absurdly unimportant
combinations and arrangements, and sug-
costing therefore, the wisdom of chang
| ing it's language by limiting it's appl-
| cation to serious combinations with in
| tent to restrain competition or control
| prices A reading of the opinions of the
| supreme court, however, makes the
| change unnecessary, for they exclude
| from the operation of the act contracts
| affecting interstate trade in but small
! and incidental way. and apply the stat
| ute only to the real evil aimed at by
| congress.
The statute has been on the statute
| book now for two decades, and the SUI
preme court in more than a dozen opin-
| ions has construed it in application to
| various phases of business combinations
| and in reference to various subject mat
ter. It has applied it to the union I'M
| der one control of two competing inter-
| state railroads, to private manufacturers
| engaged in a plain attempt to control
| prices and suppress competition in part
| of the country, including dozen states,
| and to many other combinations aHect-
| ing interstate trade. The value of a
| statute which is rendered more and more
| certain in its meaning by series OF de-
| cisions of the supreme court furnishes
| strong reason for leaving the act as
| it is, to accomplish it's useful purpose,
| even though If it were being newly en-
! acted, useful suggestions as to change Or
| phrase might be made.
For Government Control.
Many people conducting great bust
| nesses have cherished a hope and be-
| lief that in some way or other line
| NAV be drawn between good trusts" and
bad trusts" and that it is possible by
! amendment to the antitrust law to make
! a distinction under which good combina-
| lions may be permitted to organize sup
/ press competition, control prices, and do
| it all legally if only they do not abuse
| the power by taking too great profit out
| of the business. They point with force to
| certain notorious trusts having grown
| into power through criminal methods by
| the use of illegal rebates and plain cheat
| ing and by various acts utterly violat1ve
| of business honesty or morality, and urge
| the establishment of some legal line or
| separation by which criminal trusts
of this kind can be punished, and they,
on the other hand be permitted under
the law to carry on their business. Now,
the public, and especially the business
public ought to rid themselves of the
idea that such a distinction is practic-
able or can be introduced into the stat
ute.
Certainly under the present antitrust
law nc such distinction exists. 1t has
been proposed, however, that the word
reasonable" should be made a part of
the statute and then II should be left to
the court to say what Is a reasonable
restraint of trade, what Is a reasonable
suppression of competition, what is a rea-
sonable monopoly. l venture to think that
this is to put into the hands of the
court a power impossible to exercise on
any consistent principle which will in
sure the uniformity of decision essential
to Just judgment 1t Is to thrust upon
the courts burden that they have no
p1ecedents to enable them to carry, and
to give them power approaching
arbitration, the abuse of which might
involve our whole judicial system in dis
aster.
An Aid to Business Virtue.
In considering violations of the anti
trust law we ought, of course not to
forget that that law makes unlawful,
methods Of carrying on business which
before it's passage were regarded as evil
dence of business sagacity and success.
and that they were denounced in this act
not because of their intrinsic immoral
ity, but because of the dangerous re-
suits toward which they tended, the CON
centration of industrial power in the
hands of the few, leading to oppres-
sion and injustice. In dealing, therefore,
with many of the men who have used
the methods condemned by the statute
for the purpose of maintaining profit
able business, may we'll facilitate a
change by them in the method of doing
business, and enable them to bring il
back into the zone of lawfulness with
out losing to the country the economy
of management by which. in domestic
trade the cost of production has been
materially lessened, and in competition
with foreign manufacturers our foreign
trade has been greatly increased
Through all our consideration of this
grave question, however, we must insist
that the suppression Of competition, the
controlling of prices. and the monopoly
or attempt to monopolize in interstate
commerce and business are not only IN
lawful but contrary to the public good
and that they must be restrained and
punished until ended
Asks National Corporation Law.
I therefore recommend the enactment
nv congress of a general law providing