The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-09-10
THE KNTeHT rtsr
BsssaSe - Cot. assssvsIt's rr,,,..... =.
ne sunreWe csugt IN mat tp.,,n-.

I Y - -
ne supgeWe CSugt IN That lB.s,n..
To rHn EDfros oF Tvs sr~-s,, ".
has been written within the Ia, a.. -
In criticism % Mr. foos~vel,'s a1p.io- :.
ihs ds-tsion % the Unrsd s,s'-. sg,,... '.
CONT IN the sugar trust sssa a
n, q. kniGht COMPANY. "a -
part ~ Mr ROO-svels speech ~ 49,
criticism has bevn directed = th,, -.
WHERE h. said that IN 'hs KHiEh' cssa
me Supreme Court % me raltss s,...-
uader rover % what man who's ia,s,,,, =
chieny 70 sane constructive stsvardship "a, -.
cal . highiy tsebnical s1btiety, handed go.
dasision uhieb rendered % exceedingly st~-,,.
for ne nauap effectively - control o.. y,. ~
massfg % cotpNats capital In m t~raats D. 60.
a. che eaton obviously vas the sole pou., -,
could sterciss his ron iToi-for II uas ana. =.
yoad the power Of any oas STATE ms ~,
really decizlOn reBdsrtns u sAeeeiin N AZ ~.
fos ire people 70 devise any method - COZ IroI..
anu regulsuoG the business use Of great -s-1,.'
IN intsTsiate eOuperCs
An examination Of the history ~ thss..y
man Law. under whlch the knight dae,.,, |
vas rendered. particularly the par ~
that history which was cOaismporsn.,v.
or nearly 80 with the rendering Of that AZ.
cisioh. will. 7 think. chow that sIr Roo,.v.,
had hiRh authority for the commsn' thu.
made By him
n
by the supreme Court IN January. lsay ~
bslng the nrst case which came before N.
supreme Court under tho Sherman AutL
trust law In letter transmitted 10 N.
House. % Representatives BY the No,
Judson Harmon then Attorney .Iienar.l
under President ClevelandD. which I.,t.,
was IN response TO a resolution Of the Hau..
r n GrsssEa 70 ohS ~ ~. cr
man law tEx. Doc. No. 2St. Fiftv.fouTth
Congress-. tho Attorney-Gensral sad thr
the sherman law
.. construed By the supreme Court "a "a. Knsn
case does not apply 20 the moss oouplets ~
nopollee acquired oy unlawful oomblnAuoas q
they In fsct control the msrEs,s % iss ssa.
eosiniry. " s5gsslns IN lnssr.la,e 9ommsres y
aot lie direct and Immediate object TAs Vlrrss
.ssei q az - y .FsIs;t IsSs ~ op,'atIsn y
srs pseSssi5 issports,s si,S II,slie, MIN. e''
The limitation OF the present Law enables thos.
Sac ssd P.deTaI oSv@mnsS,s' ~ for% men s ss
the latter having authority over nothing slsr
And in the report Of Attorney Gensrsl
Harmon 70 Congress for the year 1905 ~
page 77l the Acknowledgement said:
The restrie.ed scope Of the provisions OF ,ss
tAW they have been construed ~ thscouus
ssPsSSy 3 he case % - Z e s s.1
sary u any effective action IL eHpee'ed from this
DePartment
IL tina appears that the tenor ~ IN.
Was such az 90 cause the ATTORNEY General
then In once to express the formal opinion
that the law was not applicable TO any man;
probably not TO importers: and THE With.
out any qualification as 90 the extent or
S SsS ~ the s's so%Ser ss 10 se s si
%:is :Ss"ssd rof fSfh.r spnsaT sO *.
ne Ssy .Gsssqsi fspor.sd hat the .cop. q Il.
Law az thus construed was thereby 80 re-
siricted as to make amendments necessary
IL any effective action was 20 be expected
from the Depa rtmen' Of Justice. The sub
seuuent history Of the sherman Law shows
taken in both 81 thess expressions Of ogin,
ion, tnRsfnuch as IN numerous cates decided
by the Supreme Court since the knseh,
msny ella sSes have been held 90 be within
the operation Of the sherman Lac and. IN
addition. most effective action as N ne
Addy-ion Pine case tho Danbury Hatfers
ca.e aud the ike has been taken either ~
the department Of Justice or by private
lpdiyiduais without any smennn sJ -, 70 go "
gres- Indeed. later decisions Of the eour
save - drastic a construction 20 the shet.
Tafi ~ the beginning Of his administrt.
tion expressed the behef that the Ia" oNh
Without Celebrating the point IN aues,os.
~ sserns clear that the phra~eolnEy Of IRE
opinion 81 the oourt In the Knight case "a,
Sscertainment - 10 cause the Attorney
General OF the nited states then IN ono
20 arrive az opinions y both o. ne psr,lss ,
81 the sherman Law showed to have beea
erroneous opiniOns
IL would seem. therefore. that Mr.. Rooss-
welt who 10 not practising lawyer. cannes
ustly he charged with an improper crit-
cisrn Of the supreme Court in having srokea
highly technical -nbtlety. when The terms
OF the opinion rendered bv the oouri N INST
case Yer. sfch as 70 ieSd ne ne A ~. me-.
taken vieNs referred to.
II may be added that ever slnoe the hnset
decision was rendeLed y hsS 9een .%iIsS
cases With reference 20 the proper consirns
tion OF The sherman Law. This douh, .sem'
a. shown by the fact that ia the dec1Sea
rendered IN November, 1908, nv me tlrcun
ogTt o. the United Sts,c' s Z Tbs Trc e.
American Tobacco Company and others, ons
OF the Judges mentioned and nesatived
the broad -onstructloa OF me knlght aass
Instance where a manufacturing oorpeLauoa .
rOnoerned can Teiief he grah,ed fof me .ss, ~
,sc,.d " not surSeisn,iy in,oivsd % 'usdfy pFe
ceedlhgs under the act
Another 81 the JUDGES who decided he
last ment toned case deemed me declslo9
for holding that the business 81 the manl-
featuring defendants In he ohacco -
ltd not constitute tnfeFeFNF
1'ha iangusge uS.d 20 thai effect was as III.
lows
Their business l. mAnufariuting. and ne -
that they get their rsw material "a othn $500 $3.50.
!. nd send scents 20 other states 70 soheiI ornsI'
ioex not make 'hrlr business tntef.'aW 80,
inerce This certainly appear 20 be the Nlee ~
the supreme Court In the case OF ihe Cnlhd N'A'''
Ns G. knight Company
| mention the views OF the Two lesrnef
Judges A. stated by them m the Ioosees
rass with no purpose whatever 81 crtiicirins
or oue-'ioning the same. bur solely Tor ~
burmese ~ showing thar even nov 81.
The laDss 81 many wears since me rehd'l"a
N the decision IN Tho knight case serious
doubt -till prevail. ~ 10 IT, "orr~'' lh'"''
pTeta' ION and application ,.
nder all The Circumstances, therel"-'
il would seem that Nr Roosevelt ronmeh-l
arv upon thar da"ision cannot ius,ly 80
ject HIM - "ri' ictsm fftih u INV
NV NoRE. september