Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1911-12-08
MESSAGE ! ! Of
THE PRESIDENT
Nj TAFT Champions the Anti
! trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

ssos ss6Us0Os0V OOVO3OUSOV
Net Repeal Or Amendment, but Sup
Elemental Legislation Needsd-The
Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective
ons-FederaI incorporation Recon-
msnded and Federal Corporation
Commission Propossd-Ths Test Of
"ReasonabIeness."
TO the Senate and House of Repre-
6entatives:
This message is the first Of several
which l shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening of
dts regular session and it's adjourn
nent for the Christmas holidays. The
amount Of information to he commu-
n1cated 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 a reasonable
length discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
Of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
Tho Antitrust Law-The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions in the suits in equi.
ty brought by the United States to en-
Join the further maintenance of the
Standard Oh trust and Of the Ameri.
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust
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-
etons by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con-
stfucti0n Of the act. BY the DEGREES
they furnish useful precedent as to
TIE proper method Of dealing with the
capdtal and property Of illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom of additional or supplemental
legislation to make it easter for: the
entire business community to square
With the rule of action and legality
thus finally esta blished and to pre-
serve the benefit, freedom and spur Of
reasonable competition without loss Of
real emCdencv or progress
No Change In the Rule Of Decision,
Mersly In Its Form Of Expression.
The statute in its first section de-
e1ares to be illegal every contract,
combination in the form Of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy in restraint
o6 trade or commerce among the sew
erai states or with foreign nations"
and in the second declares guilty Of a
misdemeanor every person who shall
'nnonopoii1e or attempt to monopolize
Or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopo}ize 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 transporta-
doD rate agreement between inter-
state railroad companies, it was held
that 1t was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
Of was reasonable at common law, be-
cause it was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and CON-
binat1Ons in restraint Of trade, whether
nqh Of Ia
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
oequent cases the court said that the
statute should be given a reasonable
construction and refused to include
within it's inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints Of trade which it de-
dominated as incidental or as indirect.
These cases of RESTRAINT of trade that
the court excepted from the operation
q the statute were instances which
ut common law would have been call
Cd reasonable. In the Standard on
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,
all the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted in its
construction the rule 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 IN.
true. By its judgment every contract
and combination III restraint of inter
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect Of controlling prices
by sitting competition or Of establish
ing in whole or in mart MONOPOLY OF