The Mena weekly star., 1910-01-13
PECIAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON
 COMMERCE LAW
 AND THE TRUSTS
-IContI aued from second pagel

V
 Cont aucd from second page)
 iEh<fnipg off competition. then they
 IGc1ose purpose to restrain trade and
 establish a monopoly, and violate the
 Law to Suppress Abuses.
 The object of the anti-trust law was
 s9lppress the abuses of business of the
 ind Described. It was not to interfese
 fin great volume of capital which
 1ucenfrated under one organization, re-
 ufed the cost of production and made
 g profit thereby, and took no advantage
 It's size, by methods akin to duress. to
 1ilc Competition with it.
 ! wish to make this distinction as em-
 hatic as possible, because I conceive
 laf nothing could happen more destruc-
 xe fo the prosperity of this country than
 ic loss of that great economy in produc-
 on which has been and will be effect-
 n all manufacturing lines by the em-
 ioyment of large capital under one man.
 cement. I do not mean to say that
 lere is not a limit beyond which the
 :unofny of management by the enlarge
 tent of plant ceases: and where this
 appens and combination continues be-
 ofld this point, the very fact shows in-
 mt fo monopolize and not to economize
 The original purpose of many combna-
 onH of capital in this country was not ypfined to the legitimate and proper ob-
 set of reducing the cost of production
 m the contrary, the history of most rades will show at times a feverish de- Ire to unite by purchase. combination, ofhcrwise, all the plants in the coun- fy erga ged in the manufacture of par
 c1llar line of goods. The idea was rife hat Thereby a monopoly could be ef- ected and a control of prices brought
 bout which would inure to the profit of hose engaged In the combination. The afh of commerce is strewn with failures fssuch combinations. Their projectors ound that the union of all plants did not revent competition, especially where roper economy had not been pursued in he pnrchase and in the conduct of the ,asinEss after the aggregation was com 1eteM There were enough, however, of .uch Successful combinations to arouse he fears of good, patriotic men as to the e4ult of a continuance of this movement oward the concentration In the hands Of { few of the absolute control of the rices of all manufactured products.
 Refers to Sugar Trust Case.
 The antitrust statute was passed ip Eo0 and prosecutions were soon begun snder It. Tn the case of the United States Is Knight. known as the sugar trust asee because of the narrow scope of he headings. the combination sought to ,c enjoined was held not to be included within the prohibition of the act. because he aserments did not go beyond the uerc Acquisition of manufacturing plants '0r the refining of sugar. and did not In 1ude that of q direct and intended re- itrafnt upon trade and commerce in the saie and delivery of sugar across state ooundaries and in foreign trade. The result of the sugar trust case was not 1appy, in that 1t gave other companies ind combinations seeking q similar meth- ,d Of making profit by establishing in absolute control and monopoly in par iclllar line of manufacture. a sense of mmunity against prosecutions in the 'ederaI Jurisdiction. and where that jurisdiction Is barred in respect to business which is necessarily commensur- de with the boundaries of the country. 70 state prosecution is able to supply the needed machinery for adequate restraint IT punshment.
 Following the sugar trust decision. there have come along in the slow but certain course of judicial disposition cases fnvolving a construction of the an- ti-truef statute and its application. un- til now they seem to embrace every phase ,f thaf law which can be practically pre- <8H4Hu 10 t1e Amtrcan pupnC ana 10 te Government for action. They show hat the anti-trust act has wide scope md applies to many combinations in tctual operation. rendering them unlaw- 'ui and subject to indictment and re- jtr4int.
 Amendment Unnecessary.
 The supreme court in several of its iteiSions. has declined to read into the datute the word unreasonable" before 'rcxtraint of trade" on the ground that the 6tatute applies to all restraints and do&S not intend to leave the court the discretion to determine what Is a reason able Restraint of trade The expression "reatfaint of trade" comes from the com mon law, and at common law there were certain covenants incidental to the car ryinx out of a main or principal con- tract which were said to be covenants in partinl restraint of trade. and were held fo be enforcible because reasonably" adnpfed to the performance of the main or Principal contract. and under the general contract. and under the general laaEuage used by the supreme court in several cases. 1t would seem that even such incidental covenants in restraint Of Interstate trade were within the in- hihition of the statute and must be con jfmned.
 In order to avoid such result I have thought and said that 1t might be well Lc amend the statute so as to exclude such covenants from it's condemnation A elore Examination of the later decisions of the court. however. shows quite clear ly in cases presenting the exact ques- Hon. that such incidental restraints of trade are held not to he within the law and are excluded by the general state- nenf that. to be within the statute, the effect upon the trade of the restraint must be direct and not merely incden- tai or indirect. The necessity, therefore Tor an amendment of the statute so as 10 Exclude these incidental and bene- 1cfal covenants in restraint of trade held In cornmon law to be reasonable does not exfst.
 In some of the opinions of the federal circuit judges. there have been intima- liona. having the effect. if sound. to weaken the force of the statute by in- sluding within 1t absurdly unimportant and arrangements, and sux- Eoe<lng. therefore, the wisdom of chang m It's language by limiting it's appli- >atiou to serious combinations with in- Iont to restrain competition or control prices A reading of the opinions of the 1uprene court. however. makes the shnuxe unnecessary. for they exclude rom the operation of the act contracts klKtctlng interstate trade in but small md incidentai way. and apply the stat te only to the real evil aimed at by on&ress
 The statute has been CT the statute oQk now for two decades, and the su- reme court in more than a dozen opin< ,ne has construed it in application to Arfous phases or business combinations nd in reference to various subject mat ef. 1t has applied it to the union un- er one control of two competing inter-