Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-09-18

% result H % r,durtu ad uusIrdum.
and uo uu, who was Boo favor of W'h
ing t.r untutr ,rly.jI,c lur tu, uur
pusys fur which it was PASSED Jud
had Ju, Intelligent appreciation oi
What ,h, statute wa- intended tu ace
tuWpu.h aud which DO meant would
contend 'pr such % construction. II
s true that u uu, of tgr decisions
uf the aupr,m, court There was
statement mad, that the tcrm t"ts-
enable could not bee introduced int"
tltr statu;, because congress had not
put 10 There. nut IN" very same court
and the Yer, sam" judge when %
pas, arose presenting q restraint ui
trad, thHt must br condemned t- uu-
lawful I, literal meaning were Z"
bee given TO- "a, statute. said boz -u
many words that 10 must hD reason
ably construed, aud that 10 must not
b, held Co upIud, contracts that were
msrplN incidental restraints ui trade
and Vcr, not made for that purpose.
lu ON, Of shes, cases "a man owned
sunlo steamboats, that did AN intor-
stat, business ON tho ohio river Hc
wished To- SELL out ir did soll ont
aud ir the sale of the steamboats, he
wished 90 scu the good win of the
liuc he was running Accordingly
hc stipulated that ne would not him
self engage in that business between
those same points for e certain num-
ber uI Years THIS was Interstate husi-
ness and his contract was loo restraint
or trade, but the supreme court held
that IL Was a mere Incidental restraint
incidental tu the sale Of the good
viii, and su was not within the stat
| lutte This wouid have been the same.
| in common law where from time ,u,-
memorial surh restraint 90 this has
been held TO b, reasonable. bcDHusc
limited tu the necessity uf prrsrr, ing
the good win which the vrnd,r was
selling and which hut fur such an
agreement would hr worth nothing.
In other words. thu supreme court In
this case gave q reasonable cunsiruc-
/ tlou 10 thg statute and eliminated
from its operation those harmless.
/ useful incidental restraints CROWNS
out OF lawful contracts which are
made for an entirely ditfrrrrt par.
4 pose from tnat of controlling prices
or maintaining monopoly uut suu-
posing competition. and which us,,
always been recognized us proucri,
enforceable by courts uf both law aud
equity
~ is true that The court. iu the .irly
days Of the construction ot the stat
utc. had said that it could not limit
the statute m effect by cNcludiug
from its operation what was drciuod
reasonable at common law But a
other eases aros, 10 found II uoros'
ury fo make exceptions tu tho literal
/ operation of the words, restraint ui
I trade" and II did so bN excepting what
WAS minor. or Incidental ur indirect
and Including onN those yasr~ where
he chiof obicct ut the contract of
combination VAS the restraint 40
doing So tho court said that % mus
ai,r the statut, reasonable CON
structiuu and not one leading Go alb
surd or ridiculous results
IN the hast two eases tho court a.,
not change the substance uf the rrus
onlnR aud scope ot the previous ar
faculties. but only treated the cNcCp
tions before termed incidental an,
indirect" as excluded ruuI th, opcr
iation from the statute light nf rvusuu
that ~. IN conformity Geo tn" rNi
sought to be- reached NuN. iU S. ht
way has this injured thu public W'al
What combinations or arrangement
can cscap, under this Interpretation
that any sensible man would wish q
have condemned Did tn, court no
condemn the standard Oil COMPANY
the father of All trusts. iu the nistor
of ever, form of criminalIA 10 va
practlcod Dlt it not, ON the 9th,
hand. condemn the Tobacco trust. %
much later origin aud framed und,
the advance of cunning counsel fu
the very purpose OF rynding con
dornation OF the statute and pt th
snmc tim, securing and enjoying th
monop0l, the framcrs 80 the sttut
Intended to punish'
Unti IN, decision of the su
prcmc court la THESE last tV
cases there was "a clearly defined hop
In the miHds of many business nv
who had reached the conclusion tina
II was impossible To conduct busino-
on a free competitive basis and tina
u was necessary to mouopuli2v cuutr,
OF prlcrs and competition in order
b make business reasonably profitable
, that In some way or other the statui
r could b" construed so az to make
applN only to reasonable munupuli,
] land unreasonable exclusion Of con
q petiOn and the control
- prices lp nay message of January
{ 1910, on the interstate commerce an
\ trust laws and federal incorporation
n used this lnnguaGe.
MANY people conducting gre,
p businesses have cherished hope an
a OContinued on PAGE ., Column g.,