The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-09-18
Defends the Supreme Court Of
the United States.
CHALLENGES BRYAN.
10 Point Out Any Wrong in Re-
cent Decisions.
Introduction of the Word Rea-
sOnable in the Opinions.

Detroit. Sept. 1S.-President Taft at
luncheon with the board OF commerce
here today, made the first Of what may
be termed the political speeches OF his
SIX weeks tour OIL the country. He TOOK
\ up the trusts" and clearly outlined
ms views concerning them. He defend
I ed with vigor the decisions of the Uni
ted State supreme court in the stand
ard Oil md Tobacco trust cases and
there was distinct campaign note in
MT Taft's challenge to his ancient po-
ltlcat enemy, William jennings Bryan,
to point out what particular contract or
restraint OF trade he would condemn
which would not be condemned withiR
the dehnitlon of the statute as laid
down by Mr.. Chief Justice White.
Mr.. Taft added rather significantly
/ that persons VINO do not understand the
decisions and really do not understand
the law have had a great deal to say
| about them. 1t was not fair TO the
court, he declared TO say that IL had
read the word reasonable" into the
antitrust statute.
Il am entirely opposed to an amend
ment of the antitrust law" said the
president, lit is now a valuable gov
ernment asset and instrument Tested
and brought into beneficial use by 20
years OF litigation and construction by
the highest court, why should we i'm
peril its usefulness by experiments?"
The outcry for amendments following
the supreme courts decisions, the pres
ioent said had resulted in proposals
prepared without a real understanding
OF the law and he added that while
this agitation might serve the purpose
of promoting unreasonable and unrca-
sc ming discomfort it. certainly ought not
to be considered seriously. Mr.. Taft
referred to the fact that Immediately
after the rtust decisions were handed
down by the supreme court Senator Ia
Toilette spread on the public records
a quotation from one Of the presidents
messa ges as being at variance with tho
| rule of reason" laid down by the court.
The president. asserted that his views as
expressed in the message were in exact
accord with the decisions.
The Speech In Full.
My Fellow Citizens. / propose to
take up the question which has occu-
pied the attention of the American
people for now twenty years. that OF
industrial combinations known as
trusts" During the last year we
have had two great decisions by the
supreme court of the United States.
They are epoch making, and the pub
lie has not yet come to realize the ef-
feet that those decisions are certain to
have. It is not that the construction
which the court has put upon the act
is different from that which most
members of the profession. and most
subordinate courts and indeed the
supreme court itself had before indi-
Gated as the proper construction OF
the statute: but IL is that it is now
finally settled, by two fully considered
decisions in respect TO two OF the lar
gest and most powerful Of these COM
binations. what their illegality consists
/ in and how they are to be treated, in
view of the finding that they are IL
legal and 10 violate the provisions OF
the so-called antitrust or Sherman act.
Persons who DO not understand the
effect of these decisions and really do
| not understand the law have a great
| deal to say which is intended to lead
the public to the belief that i'm some
way or other the supreme court has
I ernasculated the statute and prevented
/ its operation against Objectionable and
| injurious trade com mbinations and con-
/ spiracies. Nothing is further from the
| truth.
When the statute was passed in
l1S9O the expressions used IN II TO de-
fine its object and what IL was pro-
posed therein to denounce as unlaW-
| full were not new. but they were suf-
1 ficiently broad and indefinite to re-
drire judicial construction TO settle
/ their meaning. Congress was dealing
with a subject matter in respect to
which il may be assumed that the leg
/ islators themselves were not clear az
/ to the exact limitations OF the mean
/ ing of the words in the statute they
were passing. They knew there was
an evil which they hoped to restrain
/ by the enactment Of this law. and they
relied upon the courts in their con-
structfon of the law to hedge about its
operation such restriction as would
prevent the statute from being so wide
/ in it's application as to involve absurd
! itv and the impracticable. The early
decisions under the law can not be said