New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-18
S. 0. MONOPOLY killed
Continued from arst page.

effective, II monopoly is TO be stoned
il corporations or holding companies are
not TO he permitted through their aggre-
gate wealth and power TO control all the
industries Of the country the court must
adopt a broad and reasona bile construc-
ton of this act which will not permit
monopoly in whatever form IL NAV he
organized, for if II is possible TO control
the commerce Of the country and sup
press competition by acquisition Of stock
interests in corporations engaged IN
given business. or by combining all Of
the capital in one concern through pur-
chase or otherwise. II il perfectly idle 20
maintain this act merely as iDhibiting
5he less efeCtuel method of monopolza-
ton by means Of contracts between in
dependent concerns 10 limit prices di-
vide territory. or to restrict output or
combinations with the same object
The attitude Of the government Is
made still clearer. however. by its brief
In the Tobacco case. in which it says
the Sherman act applies when the d.
rect result or necessary tendency OF the
prohibited thing is the material obstruc-
ton. hindrance or restraint of interstate
or foreign commerce" and finally in that
brief the government specifically dis
claims the narrow view of Judge La
combe in the following language:
We do not maintain that every sort Of
restraint of interstate or foreign com
merce is denounced by the sherman act,
and certainly no such doctrine is essen
tial 10 the relief asked. But when, as in
the present case. the restraint is d direct
consequence of. or that to which the
challenged contract, combination or con-
spiracy necessarily tends and also of
material or substantial character, II is
clearly within the meaning Of the stat
ute OF course we do not insist that
every contract or arrangement which
causes the elimination Of a competitor
in interstate trade is necessarily unlaN-
full. The statute was intended TO foster.
not destroy. business operations univer-
sally regarded as promotive of the pub
lie welfare.
Accordingly We do not avouch and will
not attempt 10 support the extreme con-
struCtion of the act adopted by the pre-
siding Judge below, under which he de-
Clared in substance that II would he un
lawful for any two individuals driving
rival express wagons between villages In
contiguous states 10 combine forces by
forming a partnership, or otherwise, and
operate a single line, or by contract Ito
'
any number of independent dealers,
however small
Awaiting Tobacco Decision.
Gratifed as is the Attorney General
with the decision in the Standard OIL
case. It is his view that until the de-
cision Of the court in the Tobacco case
shall have been handed down It will be
impossible 10 formulate a conclusive and
accurate opinion Of the Interpretation
given 10 the antitrust law by the Su-
preme Court. For that reason II is i'm
probable that there will be any further
development Of the administration pol
icy in dealing with presumptive Viola
tons of the statute until the Tobacco
decision is made public. The view is en-
tertained that the Supreme Court has TO
some extent broadened its Interpretation
OF the statute. This was expected, as is
shown by the views which President
Taft EXPRESSED in his message OF Jsnu-
AIRY. 1910. But IL is expected that the
application Of this broader and probably
completed Interpretation OF the statute
will he amplified and finally confirmed ny
the decision in the Tobacco case. There
is. however. nothing in the standard on
decision which indicates 70 the admins
tration the slightest necessity or deViat-
ing from its present policy I'm the numer-
Gus prosecutions under this law which
are now pending.