New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-31
STGNIFICiNT POINTS ~ THE DE-
TJSJON

SfGNIFJCiNT POINTS " IHf bh-
CISION.
What Chief Justice White has to say
in his Tobacco Trust decision with re
gard 70 the use Of reason in determin-
ing whether or not combination falls
within the prohibition Of the sherman
act is plainly reply 10 some or tne
comment evoked by his remarks on the
same subject in the Standard OH de
cjsion. The following words have
significant hearing upon the notion that
the Supreme Court was going TO dis
crimnate between good trusts and
bad trusts:
II was held not that acts which the
statute prohibited could be removed from
the control of its prohibitions by a find
ing that they We're reasonable, but that
The duty 70 interpret which inevitably
arose from the general character Of the
term restraint of trade required that the
words restraint of trade should be given
a meaning which would not destroy the
individual right to contract and render
difficult If not impossible any movement
of trade in the channels Of interstate
commemorative free movement Of which
4 was the purpose Of the statute to pro-
teCt
In other words. those restraints are
not undue which are necessary to the
individual right to contract and with
out which "any movement of trade III
the channels Of interstate commerce
would be difficult. if not Impossible.
The explanation contained in the Stand
ard OIL decision of what restraint Of
trade is prohibited by the statute was an
answer not SO much to the demand or
those who say that the era of competl-
ton is passed and that the law should
he reasonable and recognize this fact
permitting its suppression 10 large
extent and allowing the Capitalization
Of industry in few hands. as 10 the
campaign they have conducted. especial
| " since Judge LaComhe's opinion in the
! Tobacco case. TO show that the Sherman
act is an absurd statute. destroying
even the individualistic industrial condi-
| ton that il sought to protect. To this
campaign the court replies. in effect:
NO. 1t is reasonable statute. 1t
hits what it aims at. The two rival
"expressmen serving villages in ada
Gent states. who served rs the famous
ILLUSTRATION that precipitated the dis
| "cussion. need have no fear"
The Chief Justices remarks also fur
nish a reply to the criticism Of the radi-
Gals that the law Is weakened by being
! interpreted in the light of reason. He
shows with great vigor that when the
snirit rather than he letter is taken
| into consideration the law is stronger
| and evasion of il is made more difficult:
! We say of the letter. because. while
/ reeking by narrow rule Of the letter 10
/ include things which it is deemed would
/ otherwise he excluded. the contention
really DESTROYS the great purpose Of the
act. since il renders IL impossible to ap-
PLY the law 10 a multitude Of wrongful
acts which would come within the scope
If its remedial purposes by resort TO a
reasonable construction. although they
would not be within it's reach by too
narrow and unreasonable adherence 10
the strict letter.
And. again the Chief Justice writes
that IT is necessary TO follow the spirit
Of the act 'in order 10 give effect 10 its
/ rcl0edlal purposes. IIl' iedN'ld"i'
construction of the statute, then. &C
cording 10 the court makes II possible
10 reach wrongful acts which Wonld GO
iunpunishcd if the strict letter were adj
hered to. This Is notice To the bust
ness world that no technicality Will
stand i'm the way Of Furnishing restraint
of trade II will be useless 10 attempt
10 retain the substance Of monopoly by
= mere change in the form of monopoly.
TO de- that has been the expectation of
those engaged in cffecting combinations.
hut the language Of the Supreme Court
and the sweeping condemnation which
has been visited upon the Tobacco Trust
lend little encour1 cement 10 the hope Of