The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-12-07

tae statute common lay distinctions.
has ein%uscuiated IT This Is obviously
antrue. by its Judgment every con
tfuct and combination In restrain o..
Interstate trade made with the purpose
OF necessary effect OF controlling prices
1N alif.ng competition, or OF establish
irg Ia whole or in part a monopoly Of
such trade. is condemned by the stat
ute The most extreme critics annot
Instance a case that ought to be con.
dcmned under the sta, tic which is not
brought within fits terms as thus con-
strued,
The suggestion is also made that he
Supreme court by Its decision in tle
last two cases has committed to The
court the underlined and unlimited dis
erection 10 determine whether a case
of restraint OF trade is within th.
terms of the statute, This is wholly
untrue. \ reasonable restraint OF
trade at common law is We'll EndeF-
stood and is clearly defined Ii does
not rest IN the discretion Of The colit.
1t must be limited to accomplish TIE
purpose of q lawful main contract 10
which, in order that il shah be en-
1orceable at all. it must he i~ncidcntal.
If it exceeds the needs OF that contract
It Is void.
The test of roe%sonab!eness Mas
never applied by the court a com
mon-law to contracts or combinations
or cOnspiracies in restraint of trace
whose purpose was or whose neces-
sary effect would be to stihe compcti
ton, To control prices. or establish
moaopolies. The courts never as
sumed power To say that such con
tracts or combinations or conslGla
cies might be lawful if the parties to
them We're only moderate in the use
of he power thus secured and did
not exact from the public too great
and exorbitant prices. 1t is lrue
thai many theorists, and others cn
gagged in business violating Tie
statue. have hoped that some suc',
line could be drawn by courts; bu.
no court of authority has ever al
tempted it. Certainly there is moth
ing in the decisions of the latest two
cases which should be 4 dangerous
theory of judicial discretion in GU
forcing this statue can derive the
slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness of Statute a
Matter of Growth.
We have been twenty-one years
making this statue effective for the
purposes for which 1T was enacted.
The Knight case was d~iscourasing
and seemed to remit TO the states the
whole available rowcr TO attack ard
suppress the evils of the trasts.
slowly, however, the errors Of that
Judgment was corrected, and only in
'ho last three or four years has the
heavy hand OF the law been laid upon
tho great illegal combinations that
have exercised such an absolute do
minion over mary of our industries
Criminal prosecutions have been
brought and a number are pending,
but juries have fels ayerse 10 convict
ing for Jail sentences, and Judges have
been o reluctant to impose such SEN
tence N men OF respectable standing
in society whose offcnse has been
regarded as merely statutory. SIN,
as the offense becomes better under
stood and the committing OF it Par
'ales nlorc of studied and deliberate
defiance of the law. we can be conf
dent hat iuries Will convict intivid-
walls and that Jail sentences will be
imposed.
The Remedy in Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard Oil case the SIT
irene and circuit courts found tic
combination 70 be a monopoly of Ike
interstate business of refining. trans
porting, ana marketing petroleum and
ITS products. effected and maintained
through thirty-seven different cor
porati0ns. .hc stock Of which was
held by a New Jersey company. 1t
In effect commanded the dissolution
Of this combination. directed the
transfer and pro-rata distribution by
the New Jersey company of the
stock held by it i'll the thirtv-seven
corporations 10 ana among, its stock-
holders. and the corporations and in
diyidual defendants were enioinei
nom conspirine OF combining to re-
store such monopoly; and all agree
Hi''N'e9 pNlNNVA ''N oupS!hloi y COZ IoI-
atjons tending TO produce or bring
about further violations of the act
were enjoined.
In the Tobacco case. the cour.
found that the individual defendants.
,wenty-nine in number, had been en-
gagged i'll a successful effort to ac-
quire complete dominion over tho
manufacture. sale, and distribution OF
tobacco in this country and abroad.
and that this had been done by com
binations made With a purpose and
effect TO stifle competition, control
prices, and establish a monopoly. not
only in the manufacture of tobacco.
but also of tin-foil and ~licorice used
in its manufacture and of its products
OF cigars, cigarettes, aud snuffs. The
tobacco suit presented a far mois
complicated and difficult case than
the Standard Oil suit for a decree
which would e%ffectunte The vii! of The
court and end the violation Of the
ctofyta Thprp WAS hpro o~ ,;,rI,