The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-22
1T MAY CLEAR UP
OBSCURE POINTS
Widespread Feeling That Mean
ing Of Sherman Law May Be
More Clearly Interpreted
When This Celebrated
Trust Case Is De
cided.
lSpeclal 70 The Times Dispatch

and private citizens alike are anxious
Is awaiting the decision by the United
States Supreme Court in the celebrated
tobacco case. which is anticipated Mon
day. May 20. Frankly. they are unable
even to hazard q guess as 10 whether
the court will take the game course as
1t did last Monday, and By declaring
the tobacco trust 2 monopoly in re-
siraint of trade. force Tito reorGanize.
or whether there swtltTbeaa modified
decree. In ithersaeHen there are
thousands of persons throug hout the
country who will follow closely the
courts action.
The feeling is widespread in Con-
gress that the Supreme Court has left
many obscure points about the mean
ing of the Sherman law, and that some
of these may be cleared up in the to-
bacco decision.
Moreover. II is so clearly evident
that a great contest is ahead of Con-
gress over the amendment of the
Sherman law that every man In Con-
gress who is interested in Its amend
ment or modification. or In preventing
its amendment, Is eager TO hear the
last word on the subject. On what is
said in the tobacco case quite as much
as In the oil case. it is TO be expected.
the attempts to amend the Law Will be
based ard also will be opposed.
If the Supreme Court. having dis
solved the Standard OIL Company.
should now come along and say the
tobacco trust could exist and that 1t
was not found in restraint of trade
to an unreasonable extent, the whole
question OF reasonableness and unrea-
sonableness would he more in the air
than ever And II the Supreme Court
brushes the tobacco trust. following
the dissolution of the Standard Oil
monopoly, II would not seem, as q
practical matter, that the big combine
lions have gained much In security by
the reading of the word Reasonable.
BY. Chief Justice White In the Standard
Oil case.
Not MT This Session.
No serious attempt to modify the
Sherman Law probably will be made in
Congress in the extra session. That is,
the matter will be carried only to the
point OF introducing bills. but 1t will
be impossible to get A,r with them.
The reason is that early everybody
shrinks from %plunging into this great
subject in hot weather. It might be
lone in the House, but the Senate has
It's hands full with reciprocity and
direct election of Senator's. and also
with the Lorimer case.
But mex winter the ball Will be
set rolling without delay. Senator
Cummins plans to introduce a bill
81 W III 1ttN O1 "a oSS
ton OF the law early In the regular
session. and TO use every effort TO get
it considered. lie has nearly COM
pleted his bill. which is designed TO
tighten up the law and get rid OF
the doubtful term restraint of trade"
This bill, with a number of others.
that have been or will be introduced,
Will afford the Judiciary COMMITTEES
plenty OF work to wrestle with.
r.. a-a-o. .,,, - - IL I 80 49, a-.l
to provide in The amended measure
that competitive conditions shall be
preserved and not unla wfully Inter
fcrred with, but he also provides for
the government regulation of the great
interstate corporations. He would
have government control of capitaliza-
ton. complete publicity and drastic
regulations in other respects.
Senator Cu,nmins, in a recent speech
at Newark, before a meeting of New
Jersey progressives. defined mis- views
OF the Sherman law. He pointed out
that there We're three schools of
thought with respect TO the matters
touhed by that law. In the first place.
there was the %standpat element OF the
country. that would impose no r~estric-
lions on business; in the second place,
there We're those who thought COM
bination n monopoly a good thing
ii IL were regulated. and in the third
place there We're those who wanted to
preserve as far as possible conlpeti-
tive conditions. He said that IL the
Sherman law was to mean anything,
II must directly provide for the pre-
servatton of competitive conditions.
Interesting Report.
An interesting sidelight on the view
which, before the recent Supreme
Court decision, obtained in the Senate
OF the United States on the sherman
law. is shed by the report given out
BY the Senate Judiciary Committee in
January 1899. This report was against
the national Incorporation measure
then proposed. Senator Nelson wrote
It. After reciting a umbe of de-
cisi0ns Of the Supreme Court and the
State courts as well as the lower
Federal courts, Senator Nelson said:
THE doctrine and effect of all these
cases is that any agreement or com
bination directly affecting the welfare
by stirling competition and breeding
monopoly in trade n ia
contrary to public policy and invalid.
and that the courts in such cases will
not undertake to measure the degree
of the sitting of competition or the
degree OF the monopoly. In such cases
the reasonableness of the restraint
Is nut measured OF CONSIDERED.
The reasona bleness of such contracts
or combinations was never made n
question under the common law, be-
cause they were deemed to be contrary
to public policy in this, that they
stifled competition and bred monopoly,
and on that account were deemed to
be Invalid"
and not only that. but tho commit:
tee wound up by saying the law was