The New era-leader. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1911-1912, 1911-12-15

AWUdCC0 Co8SSs SnStS3SS0 49, COu1S
merely adopted the tests = tAs com.
mon law. and In defining sDesptioas to
the literal application e - slatuts,
only substituted f0r the ~ e bsing
Incidental or in1lrsct. tnne g bslng
reasonable and this. witAoue varying
in the slightest ~ actual ocope and
effect Of the statute. n olAer words.
all the cases unAer the sta1nte which
have nov been decided wonld have
been decided the same way = tAs court
had originally accepted n - coastrue-
don the rule 1t cOmmon ~.
II has been said that the court. By
Introducing into ths csastructioa e
the statute common Nv diseinctions.
has emasculated 4. This b obviously
untrue. BY IL judgment svsry con-
tract ana combination 81 restraint Of
interstate trade made with the purpose
or necessary 0fIect q controlling prices
by stining competition. o. of sstablish.
ing in whole or In part monopoly Of
such trade. II condemned by the stat
ute. The most extreme critics cannot
Instance . case that ought to be con-
demned under the statute which ID not
brought within it, teFms - thus con-
strued.
The suggestion II also made that the
Supreme court BY its decision In the
last two cases has committed TO the
court the unds1ned and unlimited dis
cretion to determine whether case
Of restraint Of trade 10 within the
terms OF the statute. This h wholly
untrue. A reasonable restraint of
trade ct common law II well under
stood and 10 clearly defined. Il does
not rest In the discretion Cf the court.
It must bs limited 10 accomplish the
purpose OF . lawful main contract to
which. In order that 4 shall - en-
forceabis y a. Il must b Incidental.
n II exceeds tho needs Of that contract
4 b VOID.
The test O. reasonahleness was
never appl1e1 By the court at COM
mon-law to contracts q examinations
or conspiracise In restraint q trade
whose purpoee was or whose neces-
sary effect would be to stifle competi-
ton, to control prices. or establish
monopolies. The courts never a.
sumed power to say that such con-
tracts Or combinations or conspiras
cies might BE- lawful II the parties to
them &ere Oply mp1eFeko n The use
Of the power thus secured and did
not ex4ct from the public too great
and sxorbitant prfcss II b true
that many theorists, and others en-
gagged In business violating the
statue. have hoped that some such
line could be drawn by courts: but
no court Of authority has ever at
tempted It. Certainly there 10 moth
ing IN the decisions Of the latest two
cases which should be q dangerous
theory Of judicial discretion In en-
forcing this statue can derive the
slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness Of Statute I
Matter OF Growth.
We have been twenty-one years
making this statue effective for the
purposes for which II was enacted.
The Knight case was discouraging
and seemed to remit to the states the
whole available power to attack and
suppress the evils of the trusts.
Slowly, however, the errors Of that
Judgment was corrected. and only In
the last three or four years has the
heavy hand OF the law been laid upoA
the great illegal combinations. that
have exercised such an absolute do.
minion over many Of our industries.
Criminal prosecutions have been
brought and number are pending.
but juries have felt averse to convict.
Inc Tor jafl sentences. and Judges have
been most reluctant to impose such sen.
tences on men Of respectable standing
IN society whose offense has been
regarded 40 merely statutory. Stili
a. the offense becomes better under
stood and the committing Of Il par
takee more OF studied and deliberate
defiance OF the law, we can b conn
dent that juries will convict individ
uals and that jail sentences win b
imposed.
The Remedy In Equity BY oisoolutloN
IN the Standard OIL case the 50
preme and circuit courts found TIL
combination to be monopoly of thu
interstate business Of refining. trans
porting. and marketing petroleum and
its products. effected and maintained
through thirty-seven different cof
| porations. the stock Of which vi
held By New Jersey company. 4
IN eject commanded the diseolufj0l
Of this combination. directed d,
transfer and pro-ratA distributl0a b!
the New Jersey company q u,
stock held BY It IN the thirty-sevus
corporations to and among IT. stocn
holders. and the corporations and n
3 dividual defendants were enjoiMe'
from conspiring or combining 70 n
store such monopoly: and On agrsl
ments between the Subsidiary c0fpol
ationa fendfng to produces = br1n