Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1911-12-05
MESSAGE OF
The PRESIDENT
Mr. Taft Champions the Anti
trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Not Repeal or Amendment, but Sup
elemental Legislation Needed-The
Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective
One-Federal Incorporation Recon-
mended and Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test II
"Reasonableness."
To the Senate and House Of Re- 'e-
sentatiyes:
This message is the first of several
which | shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. %le
amount of information to be cOmmu-
nicated as to the operations of the
government, the number of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con-
gress Of exhaustive reports Of special
commissions make it impossible to in
clude in one message of a reasonable
length discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
The Anti thrust Law-The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions in the suits in equi-
ty brought by the United States to en-
join the further maintenance Of the
Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust
ness world authortatively of the
scope and operation of the antitrust
act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part I'm 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
structi0n of the act. BY the DEGREES
they furnish 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 It 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 lis Form Of Expression.
The statute In its first section de-
clares to be Illegal every contract. |
combination in the form of trust or |
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
misdemeanor every person who shall
monOpolze or attempt to monopoli2e
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 enion transporta-
tioD rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, it was held
that II was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
or was reasonable at common law, be-
cause It was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com
binations In restraint Of trade. whether
reasonable at common law or not. II
was plain from the record. however.
that the contracts complained Of in
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
sequNnt cases the court said that the
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints Of trade which It de- {
nominated as incidental or as Indirect.
These cases Of RESTRAINT Of trade that s
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 oil
ana tobacco cases, therefore. the court
merely adopted the tests of the COM
mon law ana in defining exceptions TO !
the literal application Of the statute
only substituted for the test OF being
Incidental or indirect that OF being {
reasonable. and this without varying r
IN the slightest the actual scope and ,
effect OF the statute In other words. J
Ill the cases under the statute which !
have now been decided would have I
been decided the same way IL the Z
,ourt had originally accepted IN its :
the rule at common law. q
IL has been said that the court by I'm. A
reducing into the construction OF the c
statute common law distinctions has a
t. This is obviously IN. g
rue. BY its Judgment every contract @
md oc@bination in restraint OF inter 4
tate trade made with the purpcse or I
Necessary effect Of controlling prices I
y stihing competition or Of establish a
ne In whole or in part a monopoly Of 4
uch trade Is condemned BY the stat v
'te. The most extreme critics cannot @
Instance case that ought 20 be con v
'emned under the statute which Is not
'nonght within It's terms as thus con a