The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1911-05-19
THAT DECISION AGAIN.

Thep ress CT toe country is busy
gain discussing DE recent ruling Of
Ie supreme court dissolying Stand
ID Oil.
Many views are being aexPTesse6
! lie saoject and to our mind one o
lie est sentiments yet expressed il
ius clearly set out by the esteem
d Columbus EnQuirer-Sun.
The decision of the supreme
court Of the United States in the
Standard Gil company case was
aianded down Monday, precipi-
tates discussion of the question,
whether or not the court had the
right t. ccnstrue the law to mean
che thing wien it very plainly
says another, whether the court
has a right to say that the law
means unreasonable restraint of
trade" wien 1t very plainly says
restraint Of trade" If the court
had the right to insert the word
unreasonable" it has the power
to legislate; but If ii did not, the
indications are that it Gas assum-
ed a new jurisdiction and to what
II may lead is pro- lematical. The
federal constitution expressly
says that the legislative, execu-
tive and judicial branches of the
government shall not invade each
otter.
The Sherman antitrust law
says t3at a combination in re-
straint of trade is a violation of
the law. There is no rule of
reason in it: II is plain, unmis-
taxable statement Of the case.
There is no room for lodging or
equivocatjon. AS we understand
It, the case went to the supreme
court on the question of whether
or net the Standard Oil company
and others had formed a combine
ton in restraint of trade. 1t was
the duty Of the court, as we I'M
derstand the case, to construe the.
law, not to amend it, which. in
effect II seems to have done.
In view of the decision it would
appear that there sare good
trusts and bad trusts" notwith-
standing the fact that in his mes
sage to congress year ago Pres
ident Taft declared that there
was no such thing.
4 As matter of fact, as point
ed out 'ty Representative Hard
wick. of this state, congress has
had before it for several years a
pr position to amend the anti
tslssf law SO ass to make It nm
reasonable restrain of trade"
but that body has hot accented it.
representative AGamson. from
this district, expresses the opin-
ion that tie supreme court went
out of its way to engage in iudi-
cial legislation. 1t is his opinion
mat If trusts RESTRAIN trade thew
are Illegal, whether they are reas-
enable or unreasonable"
II a combination has the legal
right to restrain trade at all. wby
mas 1t not the right to restrain il
altogether? If A and B have the
rlght to combine and restrain C
from selling only a limited
amount Ct produce or commodi-
ties, Why have they not the right
40 restrain him altogether? No
doubt G would find it quite diff
cut to understand the reason
q leness of such law as would
restrain him at all from engas.
lng In any legitimate business
According to dispatches receiv.
ca from Washington Tuesday
nitl1t, which appear in this issu.
OF the Enquirer-Sun, there is not
a little dissatisfaction among the
representatives and senators in
congress, and some of the jnsur.
gent republicans as well. It is
SAID that there are misgivings re-
garding the Interpretation of the
antitrust law giving tie courts
power 70 differentiate between
reasonable" and s'unreassns ler
Violations. II is BRINGS I'M the
question as to whether or not
there can be reasonable viola.
tions Of any law? II SO, we would
understand that such violations
are justifiatle and no action
against the guilty parties may be
taken.
The Washington dispatch to
which reference has been made
states that several democrats as
well as insurgent republicans
are ready to offer amendments TO
the law that will nudity the
courts decision. This seems TO
ee the proper course to take in
the matter. If a wr ng interpre.
tation has been placed upon tle
law, the best thing to do is to
make i SO plain that there can be
no installing it.