El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-09-18
TAFT DEFENDS THE
SUPREME COURT
DECISION
CcCntirued from page II

CCCnticued from page u
treated in the opinion in such a way
as to give the impression that the Oper-
Rton Of the Jaw would be most re-
etrlcted4 because Of limits Of federal
Jurisdiction In deed some Officers OF
the government did not hesitate to say
that under this decision there was lit
tie hope Of reaching the evil aimed at
through federal action.
statuate Now Clear.
ut has required 20 years OF lltlga-
zion TO make the statute clear. But now
81 Is clear.
CLOSE, lawyer like Interpretations /
Trhink it is not departing from the
declaration OF the court TO say that
they find any contract IN restraint OF
7trade made for the purpose of eZclud-
.1ng competition, controlling prices or OF
maintaining a monopoly In part or IN
whole IS contrary 20 the statute ana Is
subject 70 injunction and Indictment
.under this statute in the federal courts
where IL affects interstate trade.
Asks Bryan Question.
Now, I would like TO ask Mr. Bryan
-Dr any Of the other publicists and jur-
Its who have been denounclEg this
opinion as the surrender Of the rig hts
OF the people and usurpauon Of JG-
dicial power to tell the public what
particular contract or restraint of in
Eerstate trade he would condemn which
would not be condemned within this
definition or tho court Ine QLIlculLy
with the literal construction Of the
statute IS that it would denOunce a
great many minor or incidental re-
srraints of trade, which made the star
ute ridiculous and weakened its effect
and lent support to the criticisms and
.contemptuOus treatment of the statute
10y those who were opposed TO its pass
1aEe and enforcement.
Tor instance, take the instance cited
9bV q federal circuit judge in which he
said that under literal construction Of
the statute which must be enforced II
Ehere were two persons doing q wagon
express business across a state line
and they united in a partnership, the
uni0u in the partnership would be a
RESTRAINT OF interstate trade in viola
ltion Of the statute. such a result is
reduction and absurdity, and no one
who was in favor of making the statute
effective for the purposes for which 1t
was passed and had any intelligent ap-
probation Of what the statute was in
tended 70 accomplish and what It
meant would contend Tor such con-
structiJn. 1t is true Uhat in one Of the
decisions Of the supreme court there
was a statement maze that the germ
the statute because congress had not
put 1t there, but the very same court
and the very same judges, when case
arose presenting a restraint Of trade
e literal meaning were to be given to
the statute, said In so many words that
Il must be reasonably construed, and
that IT must not be held TO include con
Btraiuts Of trade and were not made for
that purpose
On one Of these. cases a man owned
some steamboats, that did an interstate
business on the Ohio river. He wished
70 sell out. He did sell out ana in the
sale OF the Steamboats, he wished 20
sell the good win Of the line which he
nad Deen running. Accordingly, he
stipulated that he would not himself
engage In that business between those
same points for a certain number Of
years. This was interstate business and
his contract was I'm restraint Of trade,
but the supreme court held that II was
a mere incidental restraint, incidental
to the sale Of the good will and so
was not within the statute. This would
have been the same at common law,
FTHere from time immemoria1 such a re-
straint as this has been held to be
reasonable because limited to the
necessity o. preservil e the good viii
which the Vender vas selling. and
which but for such an agreement would
be worth nothing In other words the
supreme court in this case gave a rea-
sonable construction 20 the statute and