The Green Forest tribune., 1910-01-14

no Sldle pIOSeCulIOH IS dDIe lO SuppIy lile needed machinery for adequate restraint or punishment.
 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 to determine what is a 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 a main or principal con tract which were said to be covenants in partial restraint of trade, and were held to be enforCible because reasonably" adapted 10 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 eases, it would seem that even such inciC ntal covenants in restraint of interstate trade were within the in- hibltion of the statute and must be con demned.
 In order to avoid such a result, I have thought and said that it might be well to amend the statute so as to exclude such covenants from it's condemnation. A close examination of the later decisions of the court, however, shows quite clear Iy in cases presenting the exact ques- restraints 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 incfden- tai or indirect. The necessity, therefore, for an amendment of the statute so as to exclude these incidental and bene- fcial 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- tions, having the effect. if sound to weaken the force of the statute by in cuding within it absurdly unimportant combinations and arrangements, and sue- gesting therefore, the wisdom of chang ing it's language by limiting it's appii- 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 su- 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 un- der one control of two competing inter- state railroads, to private manufacturers enga ged in a plain attempt to control prices and suppress competition in a part of the country, including dozen states, and to many other combinations affect ing interstate trade. The value of statute which is rendered more and more certain in it's meaning by a 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 of phrase might be made.
 For Government Control.
 Many people conducting great busi- nesses have cherished a hope and a be- lief that in some way or other a line may 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 combna- tons 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 as having grown into power through criminal methods by the use of illegal rebates and plain cheat ing and by various acts utterly volatve Of business honesty or morality and urge the establishment of some legal line of st paration 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 practice able or can be introduced into the stat Ute.
 Certainly under the present antitrust law no such distinction exists. It has been proposed, however, that the word reasonable" should be made part of the statute, and then it 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 req sonable monopoly. I venture to think that this is to put into the hands of the court q power impossible to exercise on any consistent principle which will in sure the uniformity of decision essential to just judgment. It is to thrust upon the courts a burden that they have no precedents 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 evi- 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 a profit able business, we may well facilitate a change by them in the method of doing business and enable them to bring it back into the zone of lawfulness, with out losing to the country the economy of management by which. in our 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 CT attempt to monopolize in interstate commerce and business are not only un- 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 by congress of a general law providing for the formation of corpora tions to en- gage in trade and commerce among the states and with foreign nations, protect ing them from undue interference by the states and regulating their activities so as to prevent the recurrence, under national auspices, of those abuses which have arisen under state control Such law should provide for the issue of stock of such corporations to an amount equal only to the cash paid in on the stock; and if the stock be issued for