The Lynden tribune. [volume] (Lynden, Wash.) 1908-current, 1911-12-14
MESSAGE OF
the PRESIDENT
Nj. Taft Champions the anti
trust Statute.
NEW REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Not Repeal or Amendment, but sup
elemental Legislation Needed ne
r.h.coo Trust Decision an Effective
one-Federal Incorporation RECON-
m.nded and a Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test OF
"ReasonabIeness.
To the Senate and House OF Repre-
sentatives:
This message is the first OF severai
which l shall send to congress u"iint.
the interval between the opening vi
IFS regular session ana ITS adjourn
mont for the Christmas holidays. Inc
amount Of information to De cohiin"-
nicated as to the operations Oh 'he
government. the number OF important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission TO con
gress of exhaustive reports OF specNii
make it impossible TO IN
clude In one message of n rehsohapie
length a discussion of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attehtioh
of the national legislature ut its nrst
regular session.
The Antitrust Law-The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court mana
ed down decisions in the suits III equi-
ty brought by the United States to en-
iOin the further maintenance of the
Oil trust and of the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust
ness world authOritatively of the
scope and operation of the antitrust
act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part in any substantial way from the
previous decisions Of the court in con-
STRUNG and applying this important
statute, but they clarity those deci-
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con
struction of the act. BY the DEGREES
they furnish a useful precedent as to
the proper method of dealing with the
capital and property of illegal trusts.
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom Of additional or supplemental
legislation to make 1t easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule OF action and legality
thus finally established and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur of
reasonable competition without loss of
real efficiency or progress
No Change In the Rule Of Decision
Merely In It's Form Of Expression.
The statute in its first section de-
clares to be Illegal .every contract
combination in the form of trust OF
otherwise or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations
and in the second declares guilty Of a
misdemeanor "every person who shall
mOnopOlize or attempt to mOnopOlize
or combine or cOnspire with any Other
person to monopolize any part Of the
trade or commerce of the several states
or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked to enjOin transpOrta
| ton rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, 1t was hel(
that 1t was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
of was reasonable at common law. be
cause it was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com
binati0ns in restraint of trade, whether
reasonable at common law or not Il
was plain from the record. however
that the contracts complained of II
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
sequent cases the court said that thu
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to includ,
within its inhibition certain cOntrac
tual restraints of trade which It de
nominated as incidental or as indirect
These cases of RESTRAINT Of trade thai
the court excepted from the operation
of the statute We're instances which
at common law would have been call
ed reasonable. In the Standard OF
and tobacco cases, therefore, the cour
merely adopted the tests of the com
mon law and in defining exceptions t.
the literal application of the statut,
only substituted for the test of bein,
incidental or indirect that of beIn:
reasonable, and this without varyin,
in the slightest the actual scope ant
effect Of the statute In other words
all the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would hav,
been decided the same way If tn,
court had originally accepted in it.
construction the rule at common law.
1t has been said that the court by in
Producing into the construction of tn,
statute common law distinctions ha.
emascuiated it. This is obviously un
true. BY its Judgment every contrac
and combination In restraint of inter
state trade made with the purpose o.
necessary effect of controlling prices
by sitting competition or of establish
ing in whole or in part monopoly o
such trade is condemned by the stat
ute. The most extreme critics canno
instance case that ought to be con
demned under the statute which is no
brought within its terms as thus con
strued.
The suggestion is also made that tn,
supreme court by its decision in tn,
last two cases has committed to tn,
court the underlined and unlimited dis
erection to determine whether case o
ia - A~oA fcx vxvfth h.