The citizen., 1911-12-08

E re statute common law diStinsUQnS
{ has euasculated IL This is obviously
Eorrue By its judgment every con
tract ard combination in restraint OF
+ Interstate trade made with the purpose
. OF necessary effect Of controlling prices
By sliding competition. or Of establish
ing in whole or in part a monopoly Of
such trade, is condemned by the stat
ute The most extreme critics cannot
Instance q case that ought to be con
demned under the statute which is not
brought within its terms as thus con-
strued.
The suggestion is also made that the
Supreme court by its decision in the
last two cases has committed TO the
court the underlined and unlimited dis
cretion to determine whether case
Of restraint OF trade Is within the
terms OF the statute This is wholly
untrue. A reasonable restraint OF
trade al common Law is well under
stood and is clearly defined II does
not rest il the discretion Of the court.
L must be limited 10 accomplish the
purpose o; Z lawful main contract TO
which. in order that IL shall be Ell
forcea able at al. II must be incidental
II il exceeds the needs Of that contract
II IS void
Tie test Of reasonab.euess was
never applied By the court at com
non-aw 10 contracts or combinations
Or conspiracies in restraint Of trade
whose purpose vas or whose neces
sary effect would be 10 stife competi
ton. 70 control prices. CT establish
monopolies The courts never as
suued POWER to say that such con
tracts or combinations or conspira
cies might be lawful if the parties to
them were only moderate in the use
Of the power thus secured and did
not exact from the public too great
and exorbitant prices. 1t is true
that many theorists. and others en-
gagged in business violating the
statue. have hoped that some such
line could be drawn by courts; but
no court Of authority has ever at
tempted It. Certainly there is moth
ing in the decisions Of the latest two
cases which should be a dangerous
theory of judicial discretion in en-
forcing this statue can derive the
slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness Of Statute
Matter Of Growth.
We have been twenty-one years
making this statue effective for the
purposes for which it was enacted.
The Knight case was discouraging
and seemed to remit TO the states the
whole available power to attack and
suppress the evils Of the trusts.
Slowly. however. the errors of that
judgment was corrected. and only IN
the last three or four years has the
heavy hand OF the law been laid upon
the great Illegal combinations that
have exercised such an absolute do
minion over many of our industries
Criminal prosecutions have been
brought and a number are pending.
but juries have felt ayerse 10 convict
ing for Jail sentences. and Judges hare
been most reluctant to impose such sen
tences on men of respectable standing
in society whose otfense has been
regarded as merely statutory. Still
as the offense becomes better under
stood and the committing Of il par
takes more of studied and deliberate
defiance of the law. we can be conf
dent that iuries will convict indiTid-
uals and that Jail sentences will be
imposed
The Remedy in Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard oil case the su-
preme and circuit courts found the
combination 10 be monopoly Of the
interstate business Of refining. trans
porting. and marketing petroleum and
its products. effected and maintained
through thirty-seven different cor
porations. the stock of which was
held by New Jersey company. II
In effect commanded the dissolution
Of this combination. directed the
transfer and pro-rata distribution BY
the New Jersey company OF the
stock held by il in the thirty-seyen
corporations to and among its stock
holders. and the corporations and in
dividual defendants were enjoined
from conspiring or combining TO re-
store such monopoly; and all agree
ments between the subsidiary corpor
ations 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 en-
gagged In a successful effort to ac.
qulre complete dominion over the
manufacture. sale, and distribution Of
tobacco In this country and abroad.
and that this had been done by com.
binations made with a 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 licorice used
In its manufacture and OF its products
Of cigars. cigarettes. and snuffs The
tobacco suit presented a far more
complicated and difficult case than
the Standard Oil suit for a decree
which would efectuate The will Of the
court and end the violation OF the
statute There was here no single
holding company as in the case Of
the Standard Oil trust. The main
company was the American Tobacco
company. a manufacturing. selling