The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-05-17

! be made concerning tn trade or
commerce or the subjects Of such
commerce, anu tnus caused any act
done by any Of the enumerated m .,n
DDS anywhere il The whole field Of
| human activity, to hc Illegal f in
restraint Of trade, it follows, il, rry.
! visions necessarily called for The rl-
ercise Of judgment which required
that some standard should Lc lc-
sorted to for the purpose 90 deter
mining whether the prohibitions con-
tanned in the statute had or had not
in amy given case been vilOated. Thus.
not specifying but indutably contcm-
plating and requiring a standard, it
follows that it was intended that the
standard at the common law and in
| this country in dealing with subjects
OF the character embraced by The
statute, was intended to be the meas
ure used for the purpose of deter
mining whether in an given case a
particular act had or had not brought
about the wrong against which the
statute provided"
AS to the second section he SAID
the investigation Of the common .aw
and of law at the time the sherman
! act was passed established that il
was intended to supplement the frs
and TO make sure that by no possible
guise could the public policy en-
bodied in the first section be frustrated
| or eVaded. Having in the first section
forbidden all means Of mOnopoliza-
tion Of trade. that is, unduly restrain
ing it by means Of every contract.
combination, etc, the second section
according to the chief Justice. seeks
| if possible to make the prohibition 70
the act all the more complete ana
( perfect by embracing all attempts to
reach the end prohibited by the first
section by any attempt to monoDo-
lie, or mOnOpOlization thereof, even
although acts by which such results
! are attempted TO be brought about or
! are brought about, be not embraced
] within the general enumeration of
| the first section"
Here the chief justice first spoke
! OF using the rule Of reason in m.
plying the statute 20 any given case.
He said:
And of course, when the second
section is thus harmonized with and
made. as it was intended to be, the
complement of the first, it becomes
Obvious that criteria to be resorted
to in any given case for the purpose
of ascertaining whether Violations Of
the section have been committed is
the rule Of reason guided by the es-
tablished law ard by the plain duty
| 90 enforce the prohibitions Of the act
and thus the public policy which its
restrictions were obviously enacted
TO subserve. And it is worthy of OBJ
serVatlon, as we have previously re-
marked concerning the common law,
that although the statute by the COM
prehenSiveneSs of the enumerations
embodied III both the first and second
sections makes it assiduously certain
that its purpose was to prevent undue
restraints Of every kind or nature
nevertheless, by the omission of any
direct prohibition against monopoly
in the concrete, it indicates a con-
seriousness that the freedom Of the
individual right to contract, when not
unduly or improperly exercised was
the most efficient means for the pre-
Ventlon of monopoly since the opera
tlon OF the centrifugal and centripetal
forces resulting from the right to
freely contract was the means by
which monopoly would be inevitably
prevented if no eXtraneous or sover-
elgn power imposed it, and no right
to make unlawful contracts having
a monopolistic tendency were per
Hiliteu. IN other words, that freedom
10 contract was the essence Of free
dom from undue restraint on the
right to contract"
The chief justice next considered
me contention Of the parties as to the
meaning Of the statute fIe said in
substance the propositions of the gov
erhment were reducihlc to the claim
that the language Of the statute en-
hraccd "etery contract, combination,
etc. in restraint of trade" and left
no room for the exercise Of judgment
hut SIMPLY imposed the plain duty OF
applying its prohibitions to every case
within its literal language. The error
~ NT,.t