St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1911-12-13
1.-THE ANTITRUST ACT
Ex-senator Edmunds, Who Drew
the Bill, Defines the Intent of
Its AnfIlnn.S

GA-oCuatOE GuAAuuucs WHO OTcW
the Bill, Defines the Intent of
Its Authors.
The broad and just policy of the
trainers of the Constitution was to
provide for the protection of trade
and commerce with foreign nations
and among the several states, and
monopolies thereof, ETC., against the
evils that had afflicted the people in
the experience, of civilized mankind
in hydra-headed forms. The judici-
airy committee believed that the
well-known principles guiding the
courts in the application and con-
strdction of statutes would lead
them to give the words of the Act
"a beneficial and remedial rather
than an injurious and technical one
hurtful to any honest trade, as we'll
as out of harmony with the bene-
ficent spirit and policy of the whole
Act 1t is believed that the time
honored maxim of the law "haeret
in coTtice" and the Holy Scripture,
For the letter killeth, but the spirit
giYeth life" would aid the executive
and judicial authorities in constru-
ing and applying the statute justly
in all cases as they should arise.
The committee recognized the per-
feet soundness of the proposition
laid down by very eminent scholar
and theologian that when we find
a document asserting or implying
certain universal and fundamental
principles, and at the same time
making statements apparently or
really in contradiction with the
same, it is plain that our choice
must be in favor of the more uni
versal and fundamental principles
and that ambiguous statements
must be interpreted in agreement
with them; that contradictory state
ments must be quietly ignored"
That belief has now, on the whole,
been realized. It is believed that no
case founded on the Act has been
finally decided by the courts adj
versely to the contract or conduct
of parties accused in which such
contract or conduct did not offend
against both the letter and spirit
of the Act, as we'll as against the
sound public policy underlying both
the provisions of the Constitution
and the Act of Congress touching
the subject, while the reserved
rights of the several states have
been preserved; and aggressions of
powerful combinations in various
forms and various ways upon weak
er enterprises have been denounced,
although, unhappily, not yet fully
prevented. 1t is to be hoped that
hereafter the penal provisions of the
Act will be brought into full exercise
as we'll as those of civil character.
The fear that some literal cOnstruc-
ton of the words restraint of
trade" in the Act might lead to the
sacrifice of some just, fair, and
wholesome business arrangements
may be safely dismissed, for if the
principle and purpose of the Con-
stitution and Act have any founda-
ton at all there can be no such
restraint, because such conduct is
not restraining, but is promotive of
and beneficial to the public inter-
est.
If in a particular community
there be two grist-mills grinding the
grain brought by surrounding farm
ers; each does it we'll, but the sup
ply of grain will permit the mills to
run only half-time, the owners, in
order to pay their employees fair
wages and make a living profit are
compelled to charge the farmers
too high prices for grinding or else
fail They contract to combine fore
es and do all the grinding in one
OIL Tie Hills anu use IAS OIuOA LII
saving lumber, ard thus save the
farmers from excessive tolls, pay
the employees full wages, and make
fair profit themselves. Is that
contract in restraint of trade? Com
mon sense says no. Public policy
says no. Both say that it is the re-
verse, and that it helps business,
labor, and the public.
And so of trade and commerce
and so-called monopoly if the party
concerned can show (and it is for
him to show that his contract or
act promotes and benefits trade. and
is consistent with the general and
equal welfare of the whole people,
and thus recognized by the public
policy stated in an earlier part of
this article, it is not any restraint
of the trade or the creation or the
attempt to create the monopoly pro-
hibited by the Act. It is the con-
tracing or conspiring and the mon
opoly that are vicious, and not the
subjects of them.-Ex.- Senator
George F. Edmunds, in the North
American Review.