The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-12-05
MESSAGE OF
I. THE PRESIDENT
Nj. Taft Champions the Anti
! trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Elemental Legislation Needed he
Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective
one-Federsl Incorporation Recon-
mended and a Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test Of
"Reasonsbleness."
TO the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives.
This message is the first Of several
which shall send TO congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays The
amount Of information to be commu-
nicated 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
clude In one message of reasonable
length n discussion of the topics that
ought 20 be brought to the attention
of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
cd down decisions in the suits in equi-
~ brought by the United States to en-
join the further maintenance of the
Standard OIL trust and of the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
1t ,t,I 81 a
ness world authoritatively of the
scope and operation Of the antitrust
act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part IN any substantial way from 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 10 make IL 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 Rule Of Decision,
7 Msr-iy In !.s Form Of Expression.
The statute I'm its first section de-
clares TO be Illegal every contract.
combination I'm the form of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy I'm restraint
OF trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations"
ana n the second declares guilty Of a
nisdemeanor "every person who shall
monopoize or attempt to monopolize
or combine or conspire with any other
person TO monopollze any part of the
trade or commerce of the several states
or with foreign nations"
In two early cases, where the statute
tion rate agreement between inter.
state railroad companies. it was held
that 1t was no defense to show that
the agreement rs to rates complained
OF was reasonable at common law. be.
cause II was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com
binations In restraint of trade. whether
reasonable at common law or not. It
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 he given n reasonable
construction and refused TO include
within its inhibition certain cOntrac-
tual restraints of trade which It de-
nominated as incidental or as 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
al the cases under the statute which
hive now been decided would have
be,n decided the same way IL the
court had originally accepted in its
construction the rule at common law
IL has been said that the court by in
Producing into the construction of the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated II. This is obviously un-
true. BY It's judgment every contract
and combination In restraint of inter
state trade made with the purpose oI
necessary effect of controlling prices
by sitting competition or OF establish
ing in whole or in part a monopoly OF
sach trade IL condemned by the stat
ute. The most extreme critics cannot
instance n case that ought to be con
sdemned under the statute which Is not
brought within its terms as thus con
strued
The suggestion is also made that thu
supreme court by its decision In tho
last two cases has committed to the
c0urt the underlined and unlimited dis
cretion 10 determine whether case ol
l,saafraint ~ trade IA within the terml