Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1911-12-05


Flats third annual message to con-
Il eress. devoted exclusively to the Sher-
man antitrust act and the trust ques-
tion In general. was read In congress
sttoday. The president said:
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
TITS regular session and its adjourn
kment for the Christmas holidays. The
Eaamount of information to be commu-
nicated as to the operations of the
izgoyernment. the number Of important
subjects calling for comment by the
I executive and the transmission to con-
i gress OF exhaustive reports OF special
9-commissions make 1t impossible to in
i,clude in one message OF a reasonable
length a discussion of the topics that
ought TO be brought 10 the attention
OF the national legislature at its first
regular session.
y In May last the supreme court hand
D 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 Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
: dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust
mess world authoritatively of the
Escope and operation Of the antitrust
4 act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
apart IN any substantial way from the
previous decisions of the court in con-
ofr Nd
sstatute. but they clarity those deci-
rsions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions TO the literal con-
Instruction OF the act. BY the DEGREES
ethey furnish n useful precedent as TO
the proper method OF dealing with the
capital and property Of Illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need ana
Swisdom OF additional or supplemental
Legislation TO make II easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule OF action and legality
thus nnally established and to pre-
kserve the benefit. freedom and spur of
Reasonable competition without loss OF
real efficiency or progress.
NO CHANGE IN THE RULE.
The statute IN fits first section de-
Eclares 20 be illegal every contract,
ACCUMULATION In the form OF trust or
totherwise or conspiracy in restraint
OF trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations"
and in the second declares guilty of
misdemeanor every person who shall
Emonopolize or attempt to mOnopolize
kor combine or conspire with any other
rperson to monopolize any part of the
Z trade or commerce OF the several states
or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked 10 enjoin n transporta-
tion rate agreement between inter
Estate railroad companies. It was held
that II was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
OF was reasonable at common law. be-
cause II was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and COM
binations In restraint OF trade, whether
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 a reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints OF trade which Il 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 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
Ii has been said that the court by In.
Producing into the construction OF the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated II. This is obviously IN
true. By its judgment every contract
and combination in restraint of inter.
state trade made with the purpose OF
necessary effect OF controlling prices
by sitting competition or OF establish
ing In whole or in part a monopoly OF
such trade is condemned by the stat
ute. The most extreme critics cannot
instance a 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 a case OF
restraint OF trade is within the terms
or the statute. This is wholly untrue
"A reasonable restraint OF trade at com
mon law is we'll understood and II
clearly defined. II does not rest In the
discretion OF the court 1t must b
limited TO accomplish the purpose OF {
lawful main contract to which in ordel