Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1911-12-06

HicsaSe. Wnich was read IN both houses
OF congress Tuesday. deals exclusively
with the antitrust statute The message
In part Is as follows:
To the Senate and House of Represent
atives: This message is the first of sew
eral which / shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening OF its
regular session and its adjournment for
the Christmas holidays Tie amount OF
information to be communicated as 10
the operations OF the government, the
number OF important subjects calling for
comment by the executive, and the trans
mission to congress of exhaustive re-
ports by special commissions make II Inn
possible TO include in one message OF
reasonable length discussion of the top
les that ought to be brought to the at
tention OF the national legislature at its
nrst regular session.
The Antitrust Law-The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the Supreme court handed
down decisions In the suits in equity
brought by the United States TO enjoin
the further maintenance of the Standard
OIL trust and OF the American Tobacco
trust, and to secure their dissolution. The
decisions are experimenting and serve TO
advise the business world authoritatively
OF the scope and operation Of the anti
trust law of 1890 The decisions do not
depart In any substantial way from the
previous decisio. ) of the court in constru-
ing and applyin0 this important statute.
but they clarity those important decisions
by further defining the already admitted
exceptions to the literal construction of
the act. BY the DEGREES. they furnish a
useful precedent as to the proper method
OF dealing with the capital and property
of illegal trusts These decisions sug-
gest the need and wisdom OF additional
or supplemental legislation to make II
cd
10 square with the rule OF action and
legality thus finally established and to
preserve the benefit. freedom and spur
of reasonable competition without loss Of
real efficiency or progress.
No Change iH the Rule Of Decision
Merely In Form Of Expression.
The statute in its first section declares
20 be Illegal every contract. combination
in the form OF trust or otherwise. or con-
spiracy, in restraint OF trade or COM
merce among the several states or with
foreign nations" and In the second. de-
clares gritty OF misdemeanor every per-
son who shall monopolize or attempt 20
monopolize or combine or conspire with
any other person to monopolize any part
OF the trade or commerce OF the several
states or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked to enJoin a transportation
agreement between interstate railroad
companies 1t was held that 1t was no de-
Tense to show that the agreement to
rates complained of was reasonal at com
mon law, because II was said that the
statute was directed against all con-
tracts and combinations In restraint OF
trade whether reasonal at common law
or not 1t was plain from the record
however, that the contracts complained
of In those cases would not have been
deemed reasonable at common law.
1t has been said that the court, by In
PRODUCING into the construction OF the
statute common law distinctions. has
emasculated IT. This is obviously untrue.
BY its judgment every contract and COM
bination In restraint OF interstate trade
made with the purpose. or necessary ef-
feet of controlling prices by sitting COM
petition, or OF establishing In whole or In
part a monopoly OF such trade. is con-
demned by the statute. The most ex-
treme critics cannot instance case that
ought TO be condemned under the statute
which is not brought within its terms
thus construed.
The suggestion Is also made that the Su-
preme court by its decisions in the last
two cases has committed to the court the
underlined and unlimited discretion to de-
terrnine whether a case OF restraint OF
trade Is within the terms of the statute
This is wholly untrue. A reasonable re-
straint of trade at common law is well
understood and = clearly defined. 1t does
not rest I'm the discretion Of the court. 1t
must be limited to accomplish the purpose
of a lawful main contract to which. In
order that II shall be enforceable at all.
1t must be Incidental. II II exceeds thu
needs OF that contract It is void.
The Kennedy in Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard Oil case the Supreme
and circuit courts found the combination
10 be monopoly OF the interstate busi-
ness OF refining. transporting. and mar
keting petroleum and Its products, effect
ed and maintained through thirty-seven
different corporations, the stock of which
was held by New Jersey company. 1t
in effect commanded the dissolution of
this combination. directed the transfer
and pro-rata distribution by the New Jer-
sey company of the stock held by II In
the thirty-seyen corporations to and
among Its stockholders, and the corpora
tions and Individual defendants were en-
tofned from conspiring or combining to
restore such monopoly; and all agree
ments between the subsidiary corporations
tending to produce or bring about further
violations OF the act were enjoined.
In the Tobacco case. the court found
that the Individual defendants, twenty
nine in number, had been engaged in q
successful effort to acquire complete do
Ininion over the manufacture sale. and
distribution of tobacco In this country
and abroad and that this had been done
by combinations made with purpose
and effect to stife competition, control
prices and establish a monopoly. not
only in the manufacture of tobacco. but
also OF tin-foil and ncorice. used In its
manufacture and OF its products of ci-
gars. cigarettes and snuffs. The tobacco
suit presentend a far more complicated
and difficult case than the Standard Oil
suit for a decree which would effectuate
the will Of the court and end the viola
ton of the statute There was here no
single holding company as in the case
of the STANDARD oil trust The main COM
pany was the American Tobacco COM
many a manufacturing, selling and hold
ing company. The plan adopted to de-
stroy the combination and restore compe-
tition involved the redivision of the capi.
fal and plants OF the whole trust between
some OF the companies constituting the
trust and new companies organized FOR
the purposes OF the decree and made par
ties to It, and numbering. new and old.
fourteen.
In the original suit there were twenfy-
nine defendants who were charged With
being the conspIrators through whom the
illegal combination acquired and exercised