The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-08

= S0A IL
4 TO tile profit OF those engaged In the com
blnatlon. Tho path OF commerce Is strewr
with failures OF such combinations. Tic
protectors found that tho union OF al
q the plants did not prevent competition
especially wcro proper economy had no
been pursued In the purchase and In tllt
i conduct OF tho business after tho azgrr
cation was complete. There were enough
however. OF such successful combination
to arouse the fears OF good patriotic mel
as TO the result of u continuance OF thi'
4 movement toward tho concentration in the
hands OF q faW of the absolute control ol
4 the prices OF all manufactured products
snSnr Trust Case.
rho antitrust statute was passed In 1850,
| and prosecutions wore soon begun ,indor IT.
III the case OF tho United states IS. Knight
| known as tho Sugar Trust casc," becausn
| or tho narrow scope OF the plcadlngs. tic
| nbinntion sought TO bo enJoinOd wac he'd
/ not To be included within tho prohibition
OF the act, because the ayerments did not
! go beyond the mere acquisition OF manu-.
featuring plants for the refining OF sugar.
and did not Include that of a direct and
nerco In tho sale ana delivery OF sugar
| across state boundaries and in foreign
trade. The result of the Sugar Trust case
was not happy. in that IT gave other COM
panles and combinations seeking a similar
method OF making profit by establishing
an absolute control and monopoly>in n par!
tcular line OF manufacture n sense OF I'M
munity against prosecutions in the Federal
jurlsdictioni and whore that Jurisdiction lis
barred In respect to business which is
ries OF the country, no State prosecution
is able TO supply tho needed machinery for
adequate restraint or punishment.
Following the Sugar Trust decision. how
n IA anna n 1fav.or In J. 4, no,
but certain course OF judicial disposition
cases involving construction of tho anti
trust statute and its application until now
they seem to embrace every phase OF that
law which can be practically presented TO
the American public and to the government
for action. They show that the antitrust
act has wide scope and applies TO many
combinations In actual operation. rendering
them unlawful and subject to indictment
and restraint.
Tho Supreme Court in several OF its
decisions has declined to read into the
statute the word unreasonable before
restraint OF trade" on tho ground that
the statute applies to all restraints and
docs no. intend 70 leave to tho court the
discretion TO determine what is a reason
able restraint OF trade The expression
restraint OF trade" comes from tho COM
mon law, and at common law there were
eeftain covenants Incidental to the carry
ing out OF main or principal contract
which were said to be covenants In par
tial restraint OF trade, and were held to
be enforcible because reasonably" adapted
10 inc performance OF the main or prin-
cipal contract. And under the general Ian
Guagc used by the Supreme Court In several
cases. II would seem that even such incl !
dental covenants In restraint OF interstate
trade were within the inhibition or the
statute and must be condemned. In order |
10 avoid such a result, have thought and
said that II might be well to amend tho |
statute so as to exclude such covenants
from its condemnation. 4 close examina-
ton OF the later decisions of the court |
however, shows quite clearly In cases pre- |
senting the exact question. that such in |
cidental restraints of trade arc held not |
to be within the law and are excluded |
by the general statement that. to be within |
the statute. the effect upon the trade OF |
the restraint must be direct and not mere.
" Incidental or indirect The necessity,
therefore, FOR an amendment OF the statute |
50 as TO exclude these incidental and benc-
fetal covenants In restraint OF trade held |
at common law to be reasonable does no.
exist.
To Weaken Its Force.
In some OF the opinions OF the Federal
circuit judges there have been intima,.ons.
having the effect, If sound, TO weaken
the force OF tho statute by including with
IN 1t absurdiy unimportant com binations
ana arrangements, and suggesting therefore
tho wisdom of changing it's language by
limiting its application TO serious com.
ti,ion or control prices a reading OF the
opinions OF the Supreme Court, however.
makes tue change unnecessary, for they
exclude from the operation of tho act con-
tracts anecting Interstate trade in hut
small and incidental way, and apply the
statute only to the real evil aimsd at
BY Congress. -
the staNte has been on the statute book
low tor Two decades and the Supreme
Court in more than dozen opinions has
II
phases OF business combinations and in
'eference to various subjects-matter 1t
:as applied II to the union under one con.
sol OF two competing interstate railroads,
raj interstate railroads. to private mann.
ncturers engaged in plain attempt TO con
Tol prices and suppress competition In a
'art OF the country. includtn. dozen i
'ta.es. ana TO many other combinations ar
Getting interstate trade. The value n,
statute which is rendered more and more
ertain In Its meaning by series OF dc.
lsions OF the Supreme Court furnishes a
tfong reason for leaving the act as it is.
0 accomplish Its useful purpose even
hough II 1t were being newly enacted. nse.
Y! suggestions as to change OF phrase
hight be made.
It - tho du.y and the purpose OF the {
Executive to direct an Investigation by the
, ,,'. men. OF Justice. through the grand
WY or otherwise into the history, or.
anl2atlons and purposes of all the IN.
ustt4ai companies with respect to which
mere IS any reasonable ground for s,,s. j
'clon that they have been organized for
purpose, and are conducting business on
pan which Is In violation OF the ann, |
rust law The work ID heavy one. bm,
is not beyond the power Of tho Denarts
i zen OF Justice. II sufficient funds are rnr.
lshed, 10 carry on tho Investigations ana
pay the counsel engaged in the wnrk
ut such an investigation ana possible nros.
cutlon or corporations whose prosneritv /
: destruction affects the comfort not onls /
stockholders, but OF millions OF wage. I
arnere. employees and associaled trades. 1
zen must necessarily tend to disturb ,he t
ohtldence OF the business community. Ia {
fy up the now flowing sources OF capltal q
ON ITS places Of boarding. and produce r. I
ait IN our present prosperity that viii Ia
iuse suffering and strained circumstnnces | G
mong the innocent many tor tho fauits or 1
10 guilty few. The question which wish +
this message to bring clearly to the {
and discussion of Congress t
whether in order to avoid such d nos. I
PIC business danger something cannot be .
one by which these business combIna q
ohs may be offered q means, without great c
aanclal disturbance, OF changing the char s
s. ull organization and cxtent of their I
l -, , INTO ono within the lines of the 4