The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-05-16

cause Of its potency. for harm and the
dangerous example which its continued
existence affords, is an open and en-
during menace to all freedom of trade
and a by-word and reproach to all
modern economic methods.
"On the other hand, in powerful
analysis of the facts, ii Is insisted
that they demonstra.gel that the origin
and Development Of the vast business
which the defendants control was but
the result of lawful competitive meth
DDS, guided by economic genius of the
highest order, sustained by courage,
by a keen insight into the CONNER
cial situation resulting in the acuuisi-
tlon OF great wealth, but at the same
time serving to stimulate an increased
production, to widely extend the. dis
tribution of the products of petroleum
at cost largely below that which
otherwise have prevailed, thus prov
in gto be at one and the same time
a benefaction to the general public
as we'll as an enormous advantage to
individuals"
Rule of Reason.
In this state of affairs the chief
justice seized upon the single point
Of concord, namely, the application
of the two sections of the Sherman
antitrust law. as the initial basis of
an examination of the contention. The
rest Of his opinion divided itself into
a consideration of the meaning of the
Sherman antitrust law in the light
Of the common law, and the law of the
United States at the time of it's adopt
ton, the contentious of the parteis
concerning the act and the scope and
effect Of the decisions of the supreme
court, the application of the statute
to the facts and lastly the remedy.
In striving to get at the meaning
Of the two sections Of the law he said
the sole subject with which the first
section dealt was restraint of trade"
and that the attempt to monopolize
and monopolization" was the subject
of the second section. The chief JUS
tice said that in getting at the mean
ing of these words he would be guild
ed by the principle that where words
are employed in statute, which at
the time had a we'll known meaning
in common law, or in the law Of this
country. they were presumed to have
been used in this case unless the con-
lSAC CUil9SlS u Iuo COuIIdIS. ne
summarized his search into the COM
mon law and the law of the country
at the. time the Sherman antitrust
law was passed, SO far as the first
section was concerned. as follows:
"A-That the context manifests that
the statute was drawn in the light of
the existing practical conception of
the law of restraint of trade. because
it groups as within that class, not
only contracts which were in re-
straint of trade in the subjective
sence, but all contracts or acts which
theoretically were attempts to mon
opolize, yet which in practice had
come to be considered as in restraint
of trade in a broad sense.
"B-That in view of the many forms
Of contracts and combinations which
were being evolved from existing
economic conditions, it was deemed
essential by an all-embracing enum-
Grafton to make sure that no form of
contract or combination by which an
undue restraint of interstate or for
eign commerce was brought about
could save such restraint from con-
demnation. The statute under this
view evidenced the intent not to re-
strain the right to make and enforce