Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1911-12-07
PRESIDENT 5 MESSAGE
Continued from page -

Producing into the construction OF the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated 1t. This is obviously un-
true. BY its judgment every contract
and combination In 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 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 it's terms as thus con.
strued
The suggestion Is also made that the
supreme court by It's decision in the
last two cases has committed to the
court the underlined and unlimited dis
creti0n to determine whether a case Of
restraint Ne trade IL within the terms
Of the statute. This is wholly untrue
A reasonable restraint of trade at com.
mon law Is well understood and Is
clearly defined. 1t does not rest In the
discretion of the court. 1t must be
limited to accomplish the purpose of a
lawful main contract to which in order
that 1t shall be enforceable at all it
must be incidental. If it exceed the
needs of that contract it is void.
The test Of reasonableness was never
applied by the court at comman law
TO contracts or combinations or con
spiracieS in restraint of trade whose
purpose was or whose necessary effect
would be to stifle competition. to con
troll prices or establish monopolies
The courts never assumed power to
say that such contracts or combina-
lions or conspiracies might be lawful
if the parties to them were only mod
crate in the use of the power thus Sc
cured and did not exact from the pub
| lie too great and exorbitant prices 1t
is true that many theorists and others
engaged in business violating the stat
ute have hoped that some such line
could be drawn by courts. but no court
OF authority has ever attempted it
! Certainly there Is nothing in the deci-
! sions of the latest two cases from
which such dangerous theory of ju
dicial discretion in enforcing this stat
ute can derive the slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness of Statute a
Matter of Growth.
We have been twenty one years max
ing this statute effective for the pur
poses for which it was enacted. The
Knight case was discouraging and
seemed TO remit to the states the whole
! An, ,.,i1 Il 10 m ocl- nd
the evils of the trusts Slowly. howev
er. the error of that judgment was cor
rected. and only in the last three or
four years has the heavy hand Of the
law been laid upon the great Illegal
combinations that have exercised such
an absolute dominion over many OF our
industries. Criminal prosecutions have
been brought. and number are pend
ing. but juries have felt averse to con
yicting for Jail sentences and judges
have been most reluctant to impose
such sentences on men of respectable
standing in society whose offense has
been regarded as merely statutory
Still, as the offense becomes better I'M
derstood and the committing OF Ii par
takes more OF studied and deliberate
defiance of the law we can be conf
dent that juries will convict individu
ais and that Jail sentences will be i'm
posed.
The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard Oil case the supreme
and circuit courts found the combina-
ton to be MONOPOLY of the interstate
business Of refining, transporting and
marketing petroleum and its products.
effected and maintained through thir
ty-seven different corporations. the
stock of which was held by New Jer
sey company. 1t in effect commanded
the dissolution Of this combination, iii
rected the transfer and pro rata distr1
button by the New Jersey company of
the stock held by it in the thirty-seven
corporations to and among its stock
holders, and the corporations and indi-
vidual defendants were enjoined from
conspiring or combining to restore
such monopoly. and all agreements be
tween the Subsidiary corporations tend
ing to produce or bring about further
violations OF the act were enjoined.
In the tobacco case the court found
that the individual defendants. TWEEN
ty-nine in number. had been engaged
in q successful effort to acquire COM
plete dominion over the manufacture
sale and distribution Of tobacco In this
country and abroad and that this bad
been done by combinations made with
q purpose and effect to stifle competi
ton, control prices and establish
monopoly, not only in the manufacture
Of tobacco, but also Of tin foil and lie
orice used In its manufacture and OF
its products Of cigars. cigarettes and
snuffs. The tobacco suit presented
far more complicated and difficult case
than the Standard Oil suit for decree
which would effectuate the will OF the
court and end the violation Of the stat
ute. There was here no single hold
ing company, as in the case of the
Standard Oil trust. The main company
was the American Tobacco company.