The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-06-01
OIL TRUST RULING
SCORED BY MARTIN
IN AN INTERVIEW
S. D. Congressman
Says it Makes Law
Migratory
CONFUSION CAUSED
CONFUSION CAUSED
Makes it Appear Supreme
Court Will Dispense Lii
censes to Monopolies

Washington, D. C.-Declaring
that the decision OF the Supreme
Court in the Standard Oil case has
caused much confusion with respect
to the meaning of the Sherman law,
Representative Martin of South Da-
kota, today gave out an interesting
analysis of the decision and sharp
comments thereon.
"Its effect is to mystify rather
than to clarity the subject" says Mr..
Martin.
He declares the confusion arises
from "the learned, exhaustive, and
subtle discussion of the Chief JUS
tice upon the history, purpose, and
meaning of the antitrust law"
Further, Mr.. Martin said of the
decision:
1T abounds in the expressions,
undue restraint of trade '%unreason"
ably restrictive of competitive con-
d%itions, , monopoly in the concrete
the centrifugal and centripetal fore
es resulting from the right to freely
contract the light of reason and
the rule of eason guided by the es-
tablished law"
%. Two Conclusions. . -.
1.-TWO conclusions can be drawn
from the opinion with reasonable
certainty:
That the court does not adopt a
literal Interpretation of the language
of the statute that every contract,
combination or conspiracy
in restraint of trade - s. is illegal.
That the court does not supply
any rule of Interpretation by which
it may be known whether any par
ticular contract, combination or
conspiracy in restraint of trade is ~-
gal Or illegal"
Mr.. Martin says it is almost posi-
tive also that the court holds that
there is no way of ascertaining
whether any given act is lawful or
unlawful under the statute until the
particular facts are passed upon by
the courts. He adds:
"Meanwhile Wall Street is eXult-
ant and trust stocks are advancing
on the market.
Problem of Age.
After referring to the clear and
positive language of Judge Sanborn
in the circuit court of appeals in the
Standard Oil case and to past de-
cisions of the Supreme Court. Mr..
Martin, having quoted from San
born, says:
NOV. with this opinion before
the court, it would seem that the
Chief Justice would have either di-
rectly approved or disapproved. of
Judge Sanborn's Interpretation of
the law, and SO have set the matter
at rest. The fact that he has not
done so may we'll bring consterna-
ton among those who believe that
the prompt and rightful settlement
of the trust question is the most i'm
portant economic problem of the age.
The language of the Chief Jus
tice appears 10 reach much farther
than the technical limitations of
the common law, and to f~oreshadow
a possible Interpretation of the act
by the Supreme Court to the effect
that a direct and positive restraint
OF trade may not be unlawful, de-
pending upon whether in the mind
of the court the restraint is unreal
enable or Injurious to the public.
This appears to open up a wide door
to uncertainty and controversy,
Each case is to be determined by
the light of reason, guided by the
principles of law
Light of Reason"
ut being conceded in a given Ease
that a contract or combination is in
direct restraint of trade, whose light
OF reason is to determine whether
the restraint is reasonable or unreal
sonable? Every monopolist will con-
tend that his particular grade and
quantity of monopoly is reasonable,
and just about what is necessary to
the prosperity of his business. Con-
spirators against free competition in
interstate trade will consider that
any freer competition than their
combination allows would be ruin
GUS to their business.
"The public will consider that the
combination is unnecessarily injur-
ious to the public welfare. One
court and jury may consider a Civ
en- restraint of trade reasonable. An
other court and jury may take the
opposite view. " direct restraints
OF trade are to be lawful or unlaw-
full according to whether the re-
straint is considered reasonable or
unreasonable, there will be practi-
cally nothing certain in any given
case until you reach the light Of
reason Of the court Of last resort.