New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-16
A CLARIFYING DECISION.

A CLARIFYING DECISfON.
The hope that the Supreme Court III
the great trust cases which have beeh
before II for many months would clear
up the disputed questions regarding tne
Sherman antitrust act was not uisaP'
pointed Chief Justice WHITES opinion
in the Standard Oil case clarifies the un-
certain and defines the vague phrases,
giving a common sense explanation on
the law. which leaves it stronger just be-
cause it is no longer subject to r1dlcule
as impracticable and destructive of all
kinds of business big and little alike
The sweeping condemnation or restraint
of trade contained in the act had led 10
many attacks upon il. II it were IN
torpreted as Judge Iacombe interpreted
il in the Tobacco Trust case-namely. as
forbidding any combination between
previous competitors, even, 10 use his
example the union of rival cartmen car
rying on an express business between
neighboring villages in different states.
if would strike down indiscrimnately
the business forms which it intended 10
protect. together with those which il in
tended TO prevent Amendment of the
law 10 make il apply only 10 ''unreason-
able" restraint of trade had been seri-
ously considered. but it was wisely left
to the courts TO develop a workable
theory Of the acts intent, which has now
been done.
The Chief Justice the whole court OK
cept Justice Harlan concurrinS, holds
that the purpose Of the law was to pro
tect commerce from methods which
would constitute an interference that
lis an undue restraint" The intent of
Congress was 20 leave It with the courts
TO determine whether a contract or com
hination constituted restraint of trade Of
tho sort which the act was intended TO
prevent. The Justice writes
The merely generic enumeration which
the statute makes Of the facts to which
II refers and the absence Of any deflni
ton cf restraint IF trade as used in the
statute leaves room for only one con
clusion. which is that II was expressly
designed not 10 unduly limit the applica
ton Of the act by precise definition. but
while clearly fixing 2 standard-that is.
by defining the Interior boundaries which
could not be transgressed with impunity
to leave VI to be determined by the
light Of res son guided by principles If
law and the duty 10 apply and enforce
the public policy embodied in the stat
ute in every given case, whether any
particular act or contract was within
the contemplation Of the statute.
As the uncertain phrase restraint Of
trade" in the first section receives com
mon sense explanation, so the much de
hated second section is brought into har-
mony with reason This section says
every person "who shall monopoiZe or
attempt to monopoize any part of
trade or commerce among the several
states or with foreign nations shall he
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." Those
who have sought to make the Sherman
law ridiculous by extreme and literal in.
depreciation have pointed out that this
section forhids what all business must do
or cease to exist. When a tradesman OBJ
tains for himself any part of the bust
ness in which he is engaged he mOnOpO-
Lies that part of it. 1t is his and not
any one elseS. And yet the act forbids
"monOpolzing any part" Of interstate
trade. The Chief Justice holds that this
section does not describe different
offence from the preceding section, but
merely supplements that section. 1t
"seeks If possible to make the prohibit
"tion Of the act more complete and per-
fleet" And this section of the act. like
the preceding one. must he interpreted
in the light of reason and with view
TO the public policy which the act sought
10 embody.
No one can doubt that this interpreta-
ton Of the antitrust law Is in accor-
dance with its true intent. The aim Of
Congress was not to prevent those re-
straints which were usual and custom
airy in industry under competitive condi-
lions, but the new development of the
power to restrain trade which the great
combinations Of capital were making
possible. Nor can any one question the
justice of the application Of the Sherman
act in the present case. 1t was to pre-
vent Just such restraint Of trade as the
name Of the Standard Oil Company is
q synonyme for that the act was passed
nv Congress