The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1911-12-07
MESSAGE OF
THE PRESIDENT
MI. Taft Champions the Anti
trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED,

elemental Legislation Needed-The
Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective
one-FederaI Incorporation Recon-
mended and Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test of
"Reasonableness."
To the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives:
This message is the first of several
which l shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount of information to be commu
nicated 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 Il reasonable
length discussion of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
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 Oil trust and of the Amerl
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
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con
struction of the act. By the DEGREES
they furnish a useful precedent as to
the proper method of dealing with the
capital and property of illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom of additional or supplemental
legislation to make it easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule of action and legality
thus finally established and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur of
reasonable competition without loss or
real st5eieGey or proaress
s. Grange s. tha Rule Of Decision.
Merely Ia It's Form Of Expression.
Tie statute IN Is first section de.
clares to be illegal every contract.
combination in the form OF trusr or
otherwise or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations"
and in the second declares guilty of a
misdemeanOr every person who shall
mOnopOliZe or attempt to mOnOpOliZe
or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize 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 transporta,
ton rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies. it was held
that it 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 com,
bipations in restraint of trade. whet her
reasonable at common law or not. II
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
sequent cases the court said that the
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its inhibition certain contrac
tual restraints Of trade which it de
nominated as incidental or as indirect
These cases of RESTRAINT Of trade that
the court excepted from the operation
of the statute were instances which
at common law would have been call
ed reasonable In the Standard Oil
and toh'rco 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 if 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 I'M
true. By its Judgment every contract
and combination in restraint of inter.
state trade made with the purpose or
4 necessary effect of controlling prices
by sitting competition or of establish
ing in whole or in part monopoly of
such trade is condemned by the stat
ute The most extreme critics cannot
instance 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
\ erection to determine whether q case of