The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1911-09-18
ANTITRUST Law
CLEAR SAYS TAFT
President Visits Detroit To-
day and Talks on Trust
Decisions
DEFIES vOCIFEROUS CRITICS
Declares High Tribunals Interpreta
tion Will Restore Competition
to People.

Detroit, Mich, Sept. 1S.-Michigan
welcomed President Taft today with
genuine cordiality. The presidential
train reached Detroit shortly before Z
loclock this morning and despite the
Icarly hour large crowd was on hand
to catch "a glimpse of the nations chief
Executive The car was Immediately
IsWitched around the city and taken Ia
Pontiac where the President delivered
q short address and then returned to
Detroit to attend the opening of the
Michigan State Fair. At luncheon the
President was the guest of the Detroit
commercial bodies A ride about the
city occupied the remainder of the
afternoon.
] President Taft at a luncheon with
the Board of Commerce here today
made the first of what may be termed
the political speeches of his six weeks
tour of the country. He took up the
Trusts" and clearly outlined his
views concerning them.
Taft Talks on Trusts.
Mr. Taft spoke, in part. as follows.
My Fellow Citizens: | propose tc
take up the question which has occu-
pied the attention of the American
people for now 90 years, that OF In
| dustrial combinations known as
trusts" During the last year we
have had two great decisions by the
| lettf 81
| They are epoch making. and the pub
! lie has not yet come to realize the ef-
| feet that those decisions are certain
| TO have. 1t is not that the construc-
! tion 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 su-
preme court itself. had before indicat- :
| ed as the proper construction OF the
! statute; but II Is that II Is now finally
settled, by two fully considered deci-
sions I'm respect to two Of the largest
and most powerful of these combina-
tions. what their illegality consists in.
and how they are to be treated. I'm
view of the finding that they are ille-
gal and do 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 n 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
emasculated the statute and prevented
its operation against Objectionable
and injurious trade combinations and
conspiracies Nothing is further from
the truth.
Anti Trust Law Clear.
II has required 90 years Of litigation
to make the statute clear. But now
It is clear
shall not attempt to give it close,
lawyer-like Interpretation, but I think
IL is not departing from the declara-
tion of the court to say that they find
any contract i'm restraint of trade,
made for the purpose Of excluding
competition. controlling prices, or of
maintaining n monopoly, in part or in
whole. is contrary to the statute and
is subject to injunction and indict-
ment under this statute in the Federal
courts where it affects interstate trade.
Now. / would like to ask Mr.. Bryan
or any of the other publicists and jur-
lists who have been denouncing this
opinion as the surrender of the rights
of the people and a usurpation Of ju-
dicial power to tell the public what
particular contract or restraint of In
terstatc trade he would condemn which
would not be condemned within this
definition of the court The difficulty
with the literal construction of the
statute is that IL would denounce a
great many minor or incidental re-
straints Of trade, which made the
statute ridiculous and weakened its
effect and lent support to the criti-
cisms and contemptuous treatment OF
the statute by those who were opposed
to its passage and enforcement.
For instance. take the instance cit
ed by federal circuit judge in which
he said that under the literal con-
struction of the statute which must
be enforced. II there were two persons
doing n wagon-express business across
n state line and they united In a part
nership. the union In the partnership
would he a restraint OF interstate trade
I'm violation Of the statute. Such a.
result Is really reductio ad absurd
um, and no one who was In favor of
making the statute effective for the
purposes for which Il was passed. and
had any intelligent appreciation of
what the statute was intended to ac-
complish and what II meant. would
contend for such n construction.
Guards Against Monopolies.
I repeat again that in spite of all
the denunciations that we have heard
of the decisions OF the supreme court
In the STANDARD oil and the Tobacco
T.. 81 hn =