Omaha daily bee., 1911-12-06
WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
scope and Effect of Court Decisions
and New Legislation Required
for the Control OF GiEan-
tie Corporations
CONTINUED from First Page)

rule at common law.
1T has been said that the court, by in
Producing into tho construction OF the
statute common-law distinctions, has
emasculated il. This is obviously un-
true. BY its Judgment every contract and
combination in restraint Of interstate
trade made with the purpose or necessary
effect OF controlling prices by sitting
competition. or Of establishing in whole
or in part monopoly Of such trade, is
condemned by the statute The most eN-
treme critics can not instance q case that
ought TO be condemned under the statute
which is not brought within its terms as
thus construed.
1.-THE suggestion is also made that the
supreme court by its decision in the last
two cases has committed to the court
the underlined and unlimited discretion to
determine whether case OF restraint
of trade Is within the terms of the statute
This is wholly untrue. A reasonable
restraint of trade at common law is well
understood and is clearly defined. 1t
does not rest In the discretion of tho
court. It must be limited 10 accomplish
the purpose of a lawful main contract to
which, in order that it shall be enforce
exceed the needs Of that contract it Is
void.
"Thc test of reasonableness was never
applied by the court at common law TO
contracts or combinations or conspiracies
in restraint Of trade whose purpose was
or whose necessary effect would he to
stfle competition. to control prices. or
establish monopolies. The courts never
assumed power to say that such con-
tracts or combinations or conspiracies
might be lawful IL the parties to them
were only moderate in the use of the
power thus secured and did not exact
from the public too great and exorbltant
prices. 1T Is true that many theorists
Il others engaged in business violating
t.. statute, have hoped that some such
line could be drawn by courts; but no
court Of authority has ever attempted it.
Certainly there is nothing i'm the decisions
of the latest two cases from which such
a dangerous theory of judicial discretion
in enforcing this statute can derive the
slightest sanction.
Force ana Effectivcness of statute.
I'VE have been twenty-one years maxi
ing this statute effective for the purposes
for which It 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 error
of that Judgment was corrected. and only
in the last three or four years has the
heavy hand of the law been laid upon
the great illegal combinations that have
exercised such an absolute dominion over
many OF our industries. Criminal prose-
cutions have been brought and a number
are pending, but juries have felt averso
to convicting for jail sentences, and
judges have been most reluctant to i'm
pose such sentences on men OF respectable
standing in society whose offense has
been regarded as merely statutory. Still.
as the offense becomes better understood
and the committing of 1t partakes more
Of studied and deliberate defiance of the
law we can be confident that juries will
convict individuals and that Jail sentences
will be imposed.
Remedy I'm Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard oil case the supreme
and circuit courts found the combina-
ton TO be a monopoly of the interstate
business of refining, transporting and
marketing petroleum and it's produces,
effected and maintained throughout thir-
ty-seven different corporations, the stock
of which was held by n New Jersey
company. 1t in effect. commanded the
dissolution of the combination, directed
the transfer and pro rata distribution by
the New Jersey company OF the stock
held by It In the tbirty-seven corporations
10 and among the stockholders, and the
corporations and individual defendants
were enjoined from conspiring or COM
bining to restore such monopoly. and all
agreements between the subsidiary cor
porations tending to produce or bring
about further violations of the act were
enjoined.
In the tobacco case, the court found
that the individual defendants, twenty
nine in number. had been engaged in a
successful effort TO acquire complete do
minion over the manufacture. sale and
distribution of tobacco IN this country
and abroad. and that this had been done
by combinations made with a purpose and
effect to stifle competition. control prices.
ana establish monopoly. not only in
the manufacture and of its products, but
also OF tln-foil and licorice used in its
manufacture and of its products OF cigars,
cigarettes and snuffs. The tobacco suit
presented far more complicated and
WLlISLlt case tidd the STANDARD Oil suit
Tor decree which would effectuate the
VIII OF tho court and end the violation
OF the statute. There was here no single
holding company as in the case OF the
STANDARD Oil trust. The main conpc nv
Was the American Tobacco company. a
manufacturing. selling. and holding com
pdny. The plan adopted TO destroy the
combination and restore competition in
VOWED the redivsion of the capital and
plants or the whole trust between some
OF the companies constituting the trust
ana new companies organized for the pur-
pUses OF the decree and made parties TO
H. AID numbering, new and old. fourteen.
situation After ReadJustment.
The American Tobacco company (oId)
reaojusted capital Ss2, 900 600; the ILggett
* Meyers Tobacco company new.
capital 100000; the p. Loriiard com
pany new, capital, 100000: and the
i. J. Reynolds Tobacco company (old).
capital, G525,OCO are chiefly engaged IN
the manufacture and sale Of chewing
and smoking tobacco and cigars The
former one tinfoiI company is divided
into two, one OF s2Ss.OOO capital and the