The Daily Missoulian., 1910-01-08

u, .J2ANUeAKf s, 1910.-...-
fore restraint of trade on the ground
that the value applies to all re-
straints and does not intend to leave
! to the court the discretion to demand
I what is a reasonable restraint of trade.
( The expression restraint of trade
comes from the common law and at
1 common law there Were certain cove
/ nants Incidental to the carrying out
OF main or principal contract which
were said to be covenants in partial
restraint of trade, and were held to be
enforcible because reasonably" adapt
| ed to the performance of the main or
principal contract. And under the
general language used by the supreme
court in several cases ii would seem
that even such Incidental covenants in
restraint Of interstate trade were with
in the inhibition of the statute and
must be condemned. In order to avoid
such result. have thought and said
that it might be well to amend the
statute SO as to include such cove
nants from its condemnation. A close
examination of the later decisions of
the court. however. shows quite clearly
In cases presenting the exact question
that such incidental restraints of trade
are held not to be within the law and
are excluded by the general statement
that to be within the statute the ef-
feet upon 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 these Incidental and bene-
ficial covenants in restraint of trade.
held in common law to be reasona BILE.
does not exist
Wsakens Force.
In some opinions of the federal
judges, there have been intimations
having the effect. il sound to weaken
the force of the statute by including
within it absurdiy unimportant COM
binations and arrangements and sug-
costing therefore the wisdom of
changing its language by limiting its |
to serious combinations |
with intent to restrain competition or 4
control prices. reading of the opin- |
ions of the supreme court, however.
makes the changes unnecessary. for
they exclude from the operation of the
in but small and incidental way, and
aimed at by congress.
The statute has been on the statute
books now for two decades and the
supreme court in more than a dozen
opinions has construed it in applica-
tion to various phases of business
and in reference to va
TO the union under one control Of two
Interstate railroads, to Joint
traffic arrangements between several
interstate railroads: to private manu-
actIrers engaged in a plain attempt
o control prices and suppress COM
petition in a part of the country in
'luding a dozen states to many other
affecting interstate traf-
ic. The value of a statute which is
endered more and more certain in its
meaning by a series of decisions OF
he supreme court, furnishes a strong .
eason for leaving the act as II is. to .
accomplish its useful purposes, even
hough If It were being newly enacted. ,
seful suggestions as to change Of ,
hase might be made
Executive Duty.
II is the slNts,- and the purpose OF the
xecutisa 70 direct Investigation by
he department of justice through the
rand jury or otherwise into the his ,
ory organization and purposes of all
ne Industrial companies with respect
which there Is any reasonable
round for suspicion that they have 8
cen organized for a purpose and are J
onductlnK business on a plan whichl !
IN violation of the antitrust law, U
ne work Is heavy one. but II is not {;
eyond the power of the department of 7
istice, IL sufficient funds are fur c
ished to carry on the Investigations j
nd to pay the counsel engaged in the S
ork. But such investigation and pos I
Ole prosecution of corporations. u
nose prosperity or destruction af-
'cts the comforts not only OF stock I
oiders. but OF millions of wage earn o
:, employees and associated trades II
zen. must necessarily tend to disturb e
lie confidence of the business COM o
unity, to. dry up the now flowing \
'urces OF capital from its places of |
9ardIng and produce halt in our q
resent prosperity that will cause suf- r
ring and strained circumstances u
nong the innocent many for the y
ults of the guilty few. The question II
hicn l wish in this message to bring a
early to the consideration and dis
isslon of congress is whether, In or o
n to avoid such possible business c.
anger. something cannot be done by q
men these business combinations q
ay be offered means without great u
1ancial disturbance of changing the u
aracter, organization and extent of ;
cir business into one within the lines b.
the law, under federal control and o.
pervision securing compliance with OF
c antitrust statute. fo
ii
Sale Of Goods. n,
Generaliy In the Industrial combi-
tions called trusts" the principi,
siness is the sale OF goods in many
ties and in foreign markets: in other be
'rds. the interstate and for Sign bus III
ass far exceed the business d,he in ul
y one state. This fact VIII Justify w
federal government in granting a dc
ieral charter 10 such combination er
make and sell, in Interstate and for id
"a commerce. the products of useful tr