Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-05-31
DECLARES COURTS OPINION HAS
CAUSED CONFUSION WORSE
COMPOUNDED.
NO RULE IS SHOWN
TO GOVERN CORPORATIONS
Jaw 10 Not Laid Down as to What
10 . Legal or illegal Combination
Points Out Previous Court Decisions
Which Should Havs Governed Stand
ard Opinion.
Especial Correspondence

Especial Correspondence
| Washington, May 31.-Declaring that
the decision OF the supreme court in
the Standard Oil case has caused con-
fusion worse COMPOUNDED with respect
! to the meaning Of the Sherman law.
| Representative Martin, of South Da-
lsota, this afternoon gave out an in
teresting 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 dis
cussion Of the chief justice upon the
history. purpose and meaning Of the
antitrust law"
! Further, Mr.. Martin said Of the de-
cision:
1T abounds In the expressions, 'un-
due restraint Of trade, 'unreasonably
restrictive of competitive conditions
monopoly in the concrete the centri-
fugal and centripetal forces resulting
from the right to freely contract the
light of reason and the rule of reason
guided by the established law"
! Two Conclusions Certain.
| 1.-TWO conclusions can be drawn from
the opinion with reasonable certainty:
| That the court does not adopt a
litera! interpretation of the language
OF the statute that every contract,
combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade is Illegal And
! That the court does not supply any
rule Of Interpretation by which 1t may
be known whether any particular con-
tract, combination or conspiracy In re-
strain of trade is legal or illegal"
Mr. Martin says it is almost positive
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 exultant
and trust stocks are advancing on the
stock market"
| Quotes From Court Decisions.
| After referring to the clear and posi-
tive language Of Judge Sanborn in the
circuit court OF appeals in the Standard
OH case and to past decisions OF the
supreme court, Mr.. Martin, having
quoted from Sanborn, says:
! Now with this opinion before the
court, 1t would seem that the chief JUS
tice would have either directly ap-
proved or disapproved OF Judge San
born'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
CONSERVATION among those who believe
that the prompt and rightful settle
ment Of the trust question is the most
important economic problem OF the
age"
THE language of the chief Justice
appears to reach much farther than the
technical limitations Of the common
law, and to foreshadow a possible in
depreciation OF the act by the supreme
court to the effect that direct and
positive restraint Of trade may not be
unlawful. depending upon whether in
the mind of the court the restraint Is
unreasonable or injurious to the pub
lie. This appears to open up a wide
Each case is to be determined by the
light Of reason. guided by the prin-
ciples of law.
+ The Sticking Point.
1T being conceded in q given case
that a contract or combination is in
direct restraint of trade. whose light
| of reason is to determine whether the
restraint is reasonable or unreason-
able? Every monopolist will contend
that his particular grade and quantity
Of monopoly is reasonable, and Just
about what is necessary to the pros
lperity Of his business Conspirators
against free competition in interstate
trade will consider that any freer COM
petition than their combination allows
would be ruinous to their business. The
public will consider that the combina-
ton is unn ecessarily injurious to the
public welfare. One court and jury
| may consider a given restraint Of trade
reasonable. Another court and Jury
may take the opposite view. II direct
restraints Of trade are to be lawful or
unlawful according to whether the re-
straint is considered reasonable or
Iunrea sonable, there will be practically
notig hcenrtain in any given case until
you reach the Tight OF reason Of the
court of last resort.
Court 10 Dispense MonopoIiss7
I Ancient monopolies were granted by
the crown. Are modern monopolies, If
reasonable, to be dispensed by the SUI
prene court!"
Such an Interpretation, Mr.. Martin
l declares, would make the law practi-
caIly nugatory as q criminal statute
and would render the civil remedies al
most impossible of enforcement. He
points out that the indicted meat pack
ers in Chicago have not been slow to
Icomprehend the drift Of the majority
1opinion Of the court and that their
counsel is now declaring the Sherman
! law Is void as criminal statute for
uncertainty to to what constitutes an
onense
i He declares the rules Of the game
whether liberal or iiiiberai. must be
sufficiently clear and simple that they
may be known and read Of all men. He
speaks out out for a system of regula-
ltion under federal charter or federal
license.
'.In either case" he says, there must
be full disclosure to the department OF
q commerce and labor Of the nature OF
their organisation and their methods
} OF business.