Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-05-30

merce until the illegal situation DC
cured. The second he had In mind was
the appointment Of the receiver. The
court said 1t did not think 1t could
now" direct the appointment OF either
of these remedies.
Fourth. that in the event before the
expiration thus extended condition. OF
disintegration in harmony with the Ia"
is not brought about, 1t shall be the
duty Of the court, either by way OF an
injunction restraining the movement Oh
the products of the combination IN the
channels of interstate or foreign COM
merce or by the appointment OF re-
ceiver. to give effect to the require
ments Of the statute.
Pending the bringing about OF the
results just stated, each ana an oi
the defendants, individuals, as we'll as
corporations. should be restrained from
doing any act which might further ex-
tend or enlarge the power Of the COM
bination by means or device whaeso-
ever. In view of the considerations we
have stated we leave the matter 10
the court below to work out a com
pliance with the law without unneces-
sary injury to the public or the rights
of private property"
The Decree
At last he said that the decree
should be as follows:
First, that the combination IN anu
of itself as well as each and all OF tne
elements composing it. whether corpof-
ate or individuals, whether considereo
collectively or separately. be decreed 10
be in restraint Of trade and an mp.
to monopolize and monopoliza'ioi.
within the first and second sections OF
the antitrust law.
Second, that the court below IN or
der to give effective force to our degree
in this regard be asked to near the
parties. for the purpose of ascertaihihs
and determining upon some plan VI
method of dissolving the combination
and of re-creating out of the clements
now composing it a condition whlch
shall be honestly in harmony with the
law. A period of six months Is allowed
from the receipt Of our mandate, Win
leave. however, in the event, IN the
Judgment of the court below. the nee
essities Of the situation require 10 eA-
tend such period to further time not
to exceed sixty days.
The necessity Of relief for so man!
aspirants, the chief justice SAID. nao
evidently led the government 10 netn-
DDS of construction which were III
compatible and at the same time the
defendants had not been able 10 40
much better with the situation. Inc
difficulties which arose according ~
the chief justice. grew out OF a PLAIN
instrumentation both of the letter anu
spirit of the antitrust act
He added that the obscurity and re-
sulting uncertainty which had en-.
shrouded the Sherman anti-trus ACT
had been removed by the consideration
the court had given the la" IN tne
Standard Oil case recently decided. Inc
chief justice then launched forth INTO
defense of the rule Of reason law
as laid down by the court In the stan
dard OH case. He said:
Courts Reasons.
"In that case It was held. without de-
parting from any previous decision OF
the court, that as the statute had not
defined the words restraint OF trade IL
became necessary to construe tnose
words, a duty which could only be DIS
charged by q resort to reason.
1--WE say the doctrine thus stated was
| in accord with all the previous de-
cisions OF this court despite the facs
that the contrary view was sometimes
erroneously attributed to some or the
expressions used in two prior decisions
Cthe Trans Missouri Freight Associa-
! ton and Joint traffic casey that such
view was a mistaken one was fully
pointed out in the Standard OH case
and is additionally shown by a pas
sage in the point traffic case as fol-
| lows: SE Ssis'"
| 1.-THE act OF congress must have
reasona BILE construction. or else there
would scarcely be an agreement OF
| contract among business men that
could not be said to have, indirectly or
remotely. some bearing on interstate
commerce and possibly to restrain II
applying the rule OF reason to the
construction Of the statute, 1t was held
in the Standard Oil case that as the
words. restraint OF trade at common
law and in the law OF this country at
the time Of the adoption Of the anti
trust act in the embraced acts or con-
tracts OF agreements Of combinations
which operated to the prejudice OF the
public in this unduly restricting trade
or by unduly obstructing the due
course Of trade Of which, either because
of their inherent nature or effect or
because of evident purpose Of the acts.
etc. injuriously restrained trade. that
the words as used in the statute were
designed to have and did have but
like suggestance.
! THE statute did not forbid or re-
strain the power to make normal or
usual contracts to further trace by re-
sorting to all normal methods. whether
by agreement or otherwise. to accom-
plish such purpose. In other words, 1t
was held not that acts which the stat
ute prohibited could be removed from
the control Of it's prohibitions by a
! finding that they were unreasonable,
but that the duty to interpret which in-
| evitably arose from the character OF
the term. restraint Of trade required
| that the words restraint OF trade should
be given a meaning which would not
destroy the individual right to cons
tract and render difficult. Il not impos-
sible any movement OF trade In the
| channels Of interstate commerce-the
free movement OF which it was the
purpose of the statute to protect.
1.-The soundness Of the rule that the
statute should receive a reasonable
construction after mature deliberation
we see no reason to doubt. Indeed, the
| necessity for not departing In this
case from the standard of the rule OF
reason which is universal In its appli-
cation is so plainly required In order to
give effect to the remedial purposes
which the act under consideration con-
11t 20 a ut