The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-16
TRUST MUST DISSOLVE,
WITHIN SIX MONTHS
Continued From Page One.

trust law The court found this Justifi-
cation in The common law OF lhe lofe-
fathers and in the general law OF tho
country Al the time the Sherman anti
trust law was passed,
In short the court held that the tech
nical words of the statute were TO be given
the meaning which those words had in
the common law and in the law of the
country at the time. Of the enactment
THIS meaning s OF Of The The y Words aGeofGng ~ ye 20
son in determining what restraints on
trade were prohibited,
Technical Words Given Meaning.
BY the reorganization Of the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey. the chief
Justice said. there was prima facia evi-
dence that there was endesvor to
control and nlonopolize, that further in
vestieation made this conclusive pre-
sumption OF an intent TO restrain trade.
He said only the question of remedy re-
manned for consideration.
Chief Justice White first went into an
extensive recital OF the facts In the case
and then held that the court had juris-
diciion over the suit which had been
questioned by the Standard Oil.
Chic: Justice White said from the
bench that the contentious were as di
vereent as the ends Of the earth. He
spoke OF a jungle" of testimony and of
law The only point in which the two
second sections of the Sherman antitrust
law controlled the case. The chief Justice
said the court seized on this point as
DsSlS on WHICH W "olN oul Il ueclSioH'
Common Law Applied.
Taking up the Two sections, the chief
justice began consideration Of the law,
promising to come later to its applica
tion OF the present case He first took
up the common law which dealt with
the problem raised by the Sherman anti
trust law.
Probably the most important PROPOSE
ton OF law laid down in the opinion was
that the words in the statute, every
straint Of trade" are not 10 be literally
construed but arc to be construed in the
light OF reason.
On the point the court held that the
position OF the government that the su-
preme court had decided that anv quail
fication of this phase WAS precluded by
previous decisions of the supreme court
was erroneous.
Speaking of this error Of the govern
ment, Chief Justice White in his opinion
said
This is true because as the acts which
may come under the classes stated in
the first section and The restraint of
trade to which that section applies, are
not specifically enumerated or defined.
II Is obvious that judgment must in every
case he called into play in order to de-
ternIne whether particular case is en-
braced within the statutory classes and
whether If the act is within such classes
restraint of trade within the intentInent
OF the act.
''The Light of Reason
ITO hold TO the contrary would re-
quire the conclusion either that every
contract. act or combination OF any kind
or nature whether II operated in re
straint OF trade or not, was within the
statute. and thus the statute would be
destructive of all right as to contract
or agreement TO combine in any respect
whatever as to subjects embraced in In
terstate trade or commerce. or, II this
conclusion were not reached. then the
contention would require II 10 be held that
as the statute did not define the things
10 which it related and excluded resort
10 the only means by which the acts
OF which II relates could be ascer,ained
the light Of reasou-the enforcement of
the statute was impossible because OF
its uncertainty,
The merely generic enumeration
which the state makes Of The acts to
which it refers. and the absence OF any
definition of restraint of trade as used
IN The statute leaves room for only to
limit the application of the fact by pre-
else definition, but while clearly fixing
standard-that is. by defining the
ultertor boundaries which could not be
transgressed with impunity-to leave II
TO be determined by the Hight Of reason.
10 apply and enforce the public policy
embodied in the statute in every given
case: whether any particular act or con-
the statute"
Chief Justice White said the court
found no cause to doubt the conclusion
vi the court below, namely: THAT the
acts and dealings established by the
PROOF operated them destroy the poten-
TALLY of competition which otherwise
would have existed to such an extent as
te c-use the transfers of stock which
were made TO the New Jersey corpora
ton and the control which resulted over
the many subsidiary corporations TO be
q combination or conspiracy in restraint
of trade in violation OF the first sectjon
OF the act. but also TO he an atten1pt 10
monopolize. and monopolizaton bring
IN" about perennial violation OF tho
second section"
He based the conclusions OF The court
that the holdings below were right on