The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1911-12-05
MESSAGE OF
The PRESIDENT
Nj. Taft Champions the Anti
trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Not Repeal Or Asnswdnent, but Sup
plemental Lsalslation Nceded-The
Tobacco TRUST peoieIon an Effective
ons-Fedsral incorporation Recon-
mendsd and q Federal Cooperation
CommIssion Propoeed-Tho Tsst Of
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
10 the Senate and House Of Repre-
sentak1ves:
This message Is the first Of several
which shall send 70 congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and it's adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount Of information to be commu-
nacated as to the operations OF the
government. the number Of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission TO con
gress Of exhaustive reports OF special
commissions make It impossible to in
dude In one message OF reasonable
length a discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
Of the national legislature at its frst
regular session.
The Antl-trust Law-The Supreme
Court Deoieions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions In the suits In equi-
ty brought by the United States to en-
join the further maintenance of the
Standard on trust and OF the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust.
ness world authoritatively of the
scope and operation OF the antitrust
act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part In any substantial way frcm the
previous decisions Of the court in con-
STRUNG and applying this important
statute, but they clarity those deci-
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con
struction of the act. BY the DEGREES
they furnish useful precedent as to
the proper method of dealing with the
capital and property Of Illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom of additional or supplemental
legislation to make it easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule OF action and legality
thus finally established and to pre-
serve the benefit, freedom and spur Of
reasonable competition without loss Of
real efficiency or progress.
/
No Change In the RuGe oF Decision.
Merely In les Form Of Expression.
The statute IN it's first section de-
clareS to be Illegal "every contract,
combination in the form Of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy IN restraint
Of trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations
and In the second declares guilty Of
misdeuleanOr ''every person who shall
monopoliEe or attempt to monopoIize
or combine or conspire with any ether
person to monopolize any part of the
trade or commerce OF the several states
o. with foreign nations"
| In two early cases, where the statute
was invoked to enjoIn a transporta-
tion rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, Il was beld
that 1t was no defense 10 show that
the agreement as to rates compIainea
OF was reasonable at common law, be
cause II was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com
binattons IN restraint OF trade, whether
reasonable at common law or not 1t
was plain from the record, however,
that the contracts complained Of in
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
seQuent cases the court said that the
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its Inhibition certain contrac-
tuai restraints Of trade which 1t de-
nominated ms Incidental or az indirect.
These cases Of RESTRAINT OF trade that
the court excepted from the operation
Of the statute were instances which
at common law would have been call
ed reasonable. In the Standard Oil
and tobacco cases, therefore, the court
merely adopted the tests OF the com
mon law and In defining exceptions to
the literal application Of the statute
only substituted for the test Of being
incidental or indirect that Of being
reasonable. and this without varying
in the slightest the actual scope and
effect OF the statute. In other words,
all the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way u the
court had originally accepted In its
construction the rule at common law.
| It has been said that the court by in
tToducing into the construction OF the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated IL This IL obviously nm
true. BY its Judgment every contract
and combination In restraint of infar-
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect OF controlling prices
BY sliding competition or cK establish
Ing in whole Or ia part monopoly OF
such trade IL condemned by the stat
uta The most extreme critics cannot
instance q ease that ought 30 be con-
Aemned under the statute which Is not
brought within It's tarms as Thus con-
ktTued
The suggestion Is Also made that the
supreme court by les decision In the