Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1910-01-08

foreign trade or commerce is enn-
demned as unlawful and made subject
to indictment and restraint by iiiJunc-
ton and whereby In tie second sec
ton every monopoly or attempt Il mo
nopolize and every combination or
conspiracy with other persons to mo-
nopolize any part of interstate trade
or commerce is denounced as Illegal
and made subject to similar punish
ment or restraint, we must infer that
the evil aimed at was not the mere
bigness of the enterprise, but it was
the aggregation Of capital and plants
with the express or implied intent TO
restrain Interstate or foreign com
merce or to monopolize 1t in whole or
In part. A mere incidental restraint
of trade and competition Is not with
in the inhibition of the act.
II IS possible for the owners OF a
business of manufacturing and selling
useful articles of merchandise so TO
conduct their business as not to vio-
late the inhibItions of the antitrust
law and yet to secure to themselves
the benefit of the economies of man
agement and of production due to the
concentration under one control of
large capital and many plants. IL
they use no other inducement than the
constant low price of their product and
its good quality to attract custom and
their business is a profitable one, they
violate no law. But If they attempt by
use of their preponderating capital
and by sale of their goods tempo
rarily at unduly low prices to drive
out of business their competitors, or
II they attempt by exclusive contracts
with their patrons and threats of nom
dealing except upon such contracts
or by other methods of a similar char
acter to use the Iargeness of their re-
sources and the extent of their output
compared with the total output as a
means of compelling custom and fright
ening off competition. then they dis
close purpose to restrain trade and
to establish monopoly and violate the
act
Economy .,ot Only Effect of Bigness.
wish to make this distinction as
emphatic as possible, because | con-
ceive that nothing could happen more
destructive to the proslHity of this
country than the loss % that great
economy In production which has been
and will be effected In all manufacture
ing lines by the employment of large
capital under one management. / do
not mean to say that there is not a
limit beyond which the eco1ofny of
management by the enlargement of
plant ceases. and where this happens
and combination continues beyond this
point the very fact shows intent to
monopolize and not to economic.
The antitrust statute was passed In
1890. and prosecutions were soon be-
gun under it. In the case of the
United States versus knight, known as
the sugar trust case" because of the
narrow scope of the pleadings the
combination sought to be enjoined was
held not to be included within the
prohibition of the act, because the
averments did not go beyond the mere
acquisition OF manufacturing plants
for the refining of sugar and did not
include that of direct and intended
restraint upon trade and commerce in
the sale and 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
panies and combinations seeking a
similar method of making profit by
establishing an absolute control and
monopoly in particular line of manu-
facture sense of immunity against
prosecutions in the federal jurisdic-
ton, and where that Jurisdiction is
barred in respect to business which
is necessarily commensurate with the
boundaries of the country no state
prosecution is able to supply the need
ed machinery for adequate restraint OF
punishment
Following the sugar trust decision,
however, there have come along in the
slow but certain course of judicial
disposition cases involving construc,
ton of the antitrust statute and its
application until now they seem tc
embrace every phase of that law
which eau be practically presented tc
the American public and to the gov.
eminent for action. They show that
the antitrust act has wide scope and
applies to many combinations in actua
operation. rendering them unlawful
and subject to indictment and re
straint
All Restraints Forbidden.
The supreme court in several of its
decisions has declined TO read into the
statute the word unreasonable" be
fore restraint of trade" on the GROUND
that the statute applies to all restraints
and does not intend to leave TO the
court the discretion to determine wha
Is reasonable restraint of trade
The expression restraint of trade
comes from the common law, and a
common law there were certain cove
nants incidental to the carrying out Of
main or principal contract which
were said to be covenants in partia
restraint of trade and were held to bt
enforcible because reasonably adapt
cd to the performance of the main OIL