The Sentinel=record., 1911-05-17
OISSENSION
 IS VIGOROUS
JUSTICE HARLAN ATTACKS THE STANDARD DECISION HAND
 ED DOWN YESTERDAY
Says Supreme Court Has Presumed to LegsIatc in Designating Reason able and Unreasonable Trusts.
 Ruling Contradictory.


 Washington May l6In a vigorous dissenting opinion wnseh became available for the first time tonight. Justice Harlan scores tho attempt of his fellow members of the United States Supreme Court in the Standard Oil decision yesterday to make the antitrust law mean something 1t does not say, according to his Inter- pretation of the statute.
 Justice Harlan holds that his brother judges had no right to nn- surp the functions Of the legislative branches of the government by writ ing into the statute q differentiation between reasonable" and 'unrea sonable.p He declared that congress had resisted all appeals to so amend the act that there were every reason to believe that such an amendment never could be put through the legis- tdtiNt biAnAH. oHb~l tutoC thtttti stances and in their extremity. great aggrcgations of wealth applied to the court in an effort to have it con- strue the law in a way that would be flat reversal of what 1t had held on two previous occasions.
 Justice Harlan declined to be Il party to such reversal and hence his dissenting opinion. He denounced as the most alarming tendency of the day" the tendency to judicial leg lslation.
 Men of power, he said. aways we're trying to get the courts to do what congress would not Justice iarian's dissenting opinion was delivered or lally and without notes and received most careful consideration. Even yet the opinion is not in its iiilai form and undoubtedly will be elaborated.
 Justice Harlan said in part:
 q feel constrained by sense of duty to state some objections which have to the opinion of the court.
 'As to all the chief justice has said about the Illegal combination of this oil company and it's coming with fin the antitrust act, cordially con- cur.
 There are however some things in this opinion that are to result from this opinion which I think may well alarm the thoughtful men, and am unwilling to let them pass with any idea that l approve them. ~The antitrust act of 1890 was passed. at time when this country was in state of great unrest, aris- ing out of an enormous aggregation ol capital in few hands and arising out of combinations which had their hands upon the throats of this coun try, in respect even to the necessity of life, and congress had before tr the great question as to how these evils were to be remedied, 50 far as congress had the power to remedy them. The question was what shall We do?n
 After citing passages in the anti :. trust act, Justice Harlan led up to the section reading every person who shall monopoize or attempt to monopolize any part of interstate Itrade or commerce shall be liable to :. the penalties prescribed by this act" :, and asked the question "monopolize
 what?'
 ! He then says
 What becomes then of the state-
 ment that this act did not condemn monopoly itself? Did not these men
 know what monopoly was? And . when congress said that We will pun ish any man that monopoIizes or at
 tempts to monopolize any part of in.
 terstate commerce. did it not know
 what 1t intended That is not all. The 'n act says every contract, combination 'e in form os trust or otherwise, or ul conspiracy in restraint of trade or ~ commerce among the states Is here- Y by declared Illegal.
 i' Therefore. congress said to all \ the people of this country:
 I've are not going to bother the
 courts or ourselves with any inquiries
 as to what contracts arc in restraint ht of trade reasonable or unreasonable. oe We will determine it as a part of the Y policy of the United States. that. so II far as interstate trade E concerned. IS v