Arizona republican., 1911-05-17
The Trust Decision.

inc trust OeCiSion.
When President Roosevelt spoke q
his opposition to bad" trusts and @
his disposition to refrain from modest
ing good" trusts, he encountered a
avalanche Of ridicule. How could an
trust be anything but anathama? wa
the inquiry of Mr.. Bryan and of host
of his fellow citizens. 1t is true. W
believe, that Mr. Roosevelt did not US
the precise terms good and bad
in discussing trusts, but Mr.. Bryan. il
the exercise of his marvellous facult,
for putting things patty. was quick t,
sieze upon the fact that Mr. Roose
welt had. in fact, undertaken to sa!
that some trusts might be Harmless.
while others were dangerous
Wen. the supreme court Of tn,
United States upholds the Roosevelt
view. The former president can AFFORD
now to smile at remembered ridicule
The supreme court. in its long de
layed decision in the suit brought by
the government to dissolve the Stand
ard Oil company. says that the Stand
ard oil is a bad" trust and must be
dissolved. But the court is careful to
say-in dignified language, of course
that there may be such a thing as a
good" trust. That is to say, combin-
atoms whose contracts are not IN
reasonably restrictive Of competition
are not to be disturbed under the pro-
visions Of the Sherman antitrust law
1t is for the court to say in each
case, from the facts presented, wheth-
er the alleged combination is 'un-
reasonably restrictive" of competition
This is the substance Of the de
cision in the Standard Oil case, as
readily grasped by any lay reader
The whole business world has
waited with such patience as it could
muster. through a period of nearly
two years, for our great court of last
resort to hand down its decision in
this Standard Oil case.
Nobody could forten exactly what
shoot" the court would take The
Sherman antitrust law absolutely
forbids combinations in restraint Of
trade, if it is to be construed literally
A literal construction of the law by
the supreme court would throw the
business Of the country into confus-
ion. Recognition Of these facts has
been the paramount influence, during
the last year or two. in causing the
hard times" of which there has been
so much complaint and about the
cause of which there has been SO much
guessing With plentiful crops and
plentiful supply of money. it has been
exceedingly difficult to obtain money
for new industrial enterprises-simp'y
because capital was afraid to venture
until the supreme court should issue
a new chart for the business men.
The extent to which business would
have been upset by a literal construc-
ton of the law to forbid combination
can be better appreciated by an il
lustration OF two. Farmers could not
legally combine to market their melons
or other products of their soil. Mer-
chants could not legally agree upon a
basis of selling prices, even though
the prices yielded but a fair return
could not legally COM
bine to market their wages at fixed
scale
1t was. certainly. with a full appre-
citation of the enormous responsibility
placed upon it that the supreme court
took up the consideration of the trust
Oil, Tobacco. etc. 1t
was not timidity. as some demagogues
isve urged, which led the court to
postpone from time to time its final
-pllSlutIdllOn VI THESE cases. IL was
highly desirable that cases fraught !
with such tremendous consequences !
should be considered by the complete |
bench. and death interviewed time after
lime 1t was only after vacancies had
been filled by the appointment of four
new justices that the task of adjudi-
,ating the most momentous question !
which has arisen since the civil war !
vas at last shouldered by the bench
which, under the constitution, must /
rive a meaning OF the laws passed by
congress-.
It is notable that there is no poll
les" in this epoch making decision
The three democrats on the bench
axe the same view of the law as the
epublican justices. The decision it
elf is by Chief Justice White, a DEM