New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-17
TAFT AND COURT AGREE


rectly a substantial restraint Of conps-
tition, and so restraint OF trade. tina.
! the statute Ia violated The second sec.
| ton OF the act Is supplemental to the
first. A direct restraint OF trade. such
as is condemned In the first section. IL
successful and used to suppress compe-
| tition. IL one Of the commonest methods
Of securing trade'monopoly. condemned
in the first section"
Mr.. Taft then went on to point out, IN
language strikingly analogous TO that
used by the court, that n the promoters
NJ large business enterprises use no
other inducement than the constant low
price OF their product and its good quail
ify to attract custom. and their business
is a profitable one. they violate no law
bu. II they attempt by abuse Of
their preponderating capital and b.
sale OF their goods temporarily at IN.
duly low prices TO drive out Of business
their competitors. or If they attempt by
exclusive contracts with their patron,
and threats OF non dealing except upor
such contracts or by other methods Of a
| similar character use the largeness OF
their resources and the extent OF their
OUTPUT compared with the total outpu.
as a means of compelling custom and
frightening off competition. then they
disclose a purpose 10 restrain trade and
TO establish monopoly and violate the
act"
Mr.. Taft on Restraint OF Trade.
little further along the Presiden:
traces the origin Of the expression re
straint Of trade" which. he says. comes
from the common law" and OF certain
restraints he remarks that they were
held 10 be enforceable because reason
ably adapted to the performance Of the
main or principal contract" He re-
marks that under the general languaga
used BY the courts in several cases ~
would seem that even such incidental
covenants in restrain, Of interstate trade
were within the inhibition Of the statute
and must be condemned
And he goes on 10 say. In order -
avoid such a result have thought and
said that It might be we'll 10 amend the
statute so as to exclude such covenants
! from its condemnation. \ close exanlin-
alton of the later decisions Of the courts.
| however shows quite clearly in cases
presenting the exact question that such
incidental restraints Of trade arc not
held TO De within the law and are ex-
cluded by the general statement that 70
be within the statute the effect upon the
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 in
cidental and beneficial covenants in re-
straint Of trade held 1T common law %
be reasonable does not exist
Mr. Taft refers 70 certain opinions Of
circuit courts. which he says have in
themselves suggested the advisa bility q
amending the statute, but adds: -
reading OF the opinions OF the Supreme
Court, however, makes the change IN
necessary. for they exclude from the
operation Of the act contracts affecting
interstate trade in but a small and in
cidertal way. and apply the statute only
to the real evil aimed al by Congress
/ This evil. as shown by his own language.
being the creation Of a monopoly. for he
says through all our consideration OF
This grave question however We must
insist that the suppression Of competi-
ton. the controlling Of prices and the
| -, ,--ff
! interstate commerce and business are
not only unlawful but contrary 20 TIE
public good. and that they must be re-
strained and punished until ended
! And inallv. showing not only corr
placency but appreciation Of the broader
Interpretation given to the statute b.
the decisions 81 the Supreme Court
which Interpretation he has 50 clearly
I indicated obviates all necessity for TIE
amendment by the insertion of the word
"reasonabl bic Nh Taft said. the value
of a statute which is rendered more and
moro certain in IT'S meaning by series
~ decisions Of the Supreme Court fur-
nishes strong reason for leaving tl,e
act as il is. TO accomplish Us useful pur-
pose. even though If il were being newly
enacted. useful suggestions as 70 the
change Of phrase might be made.
In the light Of a just and fair pres
entation Of the views expressed b. Pres!-
dent Taft more than a year ago. . WOULD
be EAR easier 70 convict Chief Justice
White and his associates ~ plagiarism
than 10 establish a discrepancy between
the views then held by the Chief Execu-
tive and those now formally enunciated