The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-01-07


p electors foa combinalioSs with sue
tne plants diclat the uniE aell S ' 'na
tlon especiallyt prevent Nina n
omy had not bere prupeN rl ~ aes
purchase and in pursued ~ son
business after theccnauci \ ~ ny we
complete There wyresation( US lsnd
ever, OF sucA sueeesssnouoh We Ne
70 arouse the fears ofombinatHm -Or
men as to the result Of nafriIni ma
Of his movement towatinnaIe IRA
cent alton in the hands o,o ~ do
the absolute control OF theew abu
all manufactured products. "A %
Stes History A@itl
TIC antitrust statute was Ns
in 1880 and prosecutions were, III
begun under II. In the case of "a
United States VS.. knight. known ra
the "sngar trust case' because of III
narrow scope of ;he pleadings. the
combination sought to be enjoined
was held NOT to be included within
he prohibition of the ac, The re-
Vt was moi happy, in that II gave
tther companies and combinations
feakinr q similar method Of making
Drcft by establishing an absolute
control and monopoly in a particulat
line Of manufacture a sense of i'm
munity agains prosecutions in tho
Federal Jurisdiction and no state
prosecution Is able to supply tho
needed machinery for adequate ra-
siraint or punishment.
Following the sugar trust decision
Ncweye, here have come along IN
he slow but certain course of Judi
'ia disnosition cases involving q
construction Of The antitrust statute
AMI Us application until how they
seem 10 embrace every rhase Of that
aw which can be practically pre-
enled to he American public and to
he government for action. They
show that the antitrust act has q
wide scope and annies to many COM
binations in actual oneraiinn render
ing that unlawful and subject to in
dictment and restraint.
The sup eme court in several OF
Is decisions has declined to read into
he statute the word unreasonable
before restraint OF trade" on the
aound that the statute applies 10 all
restraints 10 determine what is a
reasonable restraint Of trade The ex-
jfession restraint OF trade comes
rom the common law, and at com
mon law there certain covenan S In
-.dental 10 the carrying out of Il mail
principal contract which were said
% be covenants in partial restraint
II trade, and were held to be en-
.orceable because reasonably" adapt
"a to the performance OF the main or
principal contract. And under the
eneral language used by the supreme
court IN several cases il would seem
hat even such incidental covenants
a resu aint OF interstate trade wele
itnln the inhibition OF the statute
nd must be condemned. In order
to avoid such a result, ] have thought
~nd SAID that 1t might be we'll to
mend the statute SO as to exclude
'uch covenants from its condemna-
ion. A close examination OF the lat
r decisions OF the court. however
.hows quite clearly in cases present
-ng the exact question that such in
cldental restraints Of trade are held
not to be within the law and are ex
cluded by the general statement thai
to be within the statute, the effect
upon the trade of the restraint must
be direct and not merely incidental
or indirect The necessity, therefore,
for an amendment Of the statute so
as to exclude the incidental and bene.
iicial covenants in rest aint oil trade
held in common law to be reasonable
does not exist.
Statute Many Tires Construed
The staluto has been on the 81 iatute
looks now fof two decades, and the
supreme coust in more than a dozen
opinions has construed it in applca-
t'on to various phases of business
combinations and in reference to yari-
Gus subjects matter The value to
statute which IL rendered more ana
more &c tain its meaning by series
ol decisions OF the supreme const fur
Hshes y strong reason for leaving The
act as II Is to accomplish it's useful
purpose, even though il were being
newly enacted useful suggestions as
TO change of phase might be made.
It is the duty and the purpose OF
he executive TO irect Investigation
by the department OF justice. through
The grand jury or otherwise. into tho
histo Y, organization and purposes of
all the industsial companies wita re-
spect TO which there is any reason
able ground for suspicion that they
have been organized for a purpose.
and are conducting business on Il plan
which is in violation of the antitrust
law. The work is 4 heavy one but 1t
Is not beyond the power of the depart
meni OF Justice, II sufficient funds
are furnished. 20 cary on the inyesti-
cations and To pay the counsel en-
Saged in the work.
But such an Investigation and pos
siblc prosecutions of corporations
Shoee prosperity or destruction az
ects the cOmfori not only OF stock
holders bit Of millions Of wage earn
ars, employees. and associated trades
men must necesa lily tenl to disturb
The confidence OF the business com.
munity, 10 dry up the now flowing
0urces OF capital from its places OF
boarding and produce halt In on,
present prosperity that will cause suf
fering and strained circumstances
among the innocent many for the
faults of the guilty few. The question
which | wish to bring clearly to the
consideration and discussion of con-
gress is whether in order to avoid
'nch possible business danger some
thing cannot be done by which these
business combinations may be offer
ed means. without great financial