The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1911-12-07

EHbterBtate trade made with the purpos0
or necessary effect5of controlling pficea
~ sitting competition. Or 81 establish.
IinE In whole or tn part il monopoly or
such trade 81 condemned by: the stat
ute The most extreme critics cannot,
instance a case that ought to be con
demned] under the statute which IS not,
brought within its. tef1iis ias thus con
strued.
The suggestion Is also made that the,
Supreme court by its decision ii he
last two cases has committed to the
court the uideiiied and unlimited dis,
erection to determine whether a case
of restraintkof trade Is within the
terms Of the: statute. This Is wholly
Untrue. A reasonable restraint Of
trade; at common law Is we'll under
stood and Is clearly defined. II does
not rest in the discretion of the court.
II must be limited to accomplish the
purpose Of a lawful main contract to
which, In order that It shall be en-
forceable at all, II must be Incidental.
II It exceeds the needs OF that contract
IT. Is void.
The test Of ACKNOWLEDGMENT was
never applied by the court at com.
monlaw to contracts Or combinations
or conspiracles in restraint Of trade
whose purpose was or whose neces--
sary effect would; be TO stihe competi-
ton. to control prices, or establish
monopolies. The courts never as
stunned power to sayN that such con.
tracts or combinations or conspira;
cies might be lawful II the parties ID
them were only moderate in the use
Of the power thus secured and did,
not exact from the public too. great
and exorbitant prices. It is true.
that many theorists, and others Zen.
gaged in business violating the
statue, have hoped that, some such
line could be drawn by, courts; but
no court Of authority has ever at:
tempted II. Certainly there Is nothss
Ing in the decisions Of the latest two
cases which should be a dangerous
theory OF judicial discretion In en-
forcing this statue can derive the
alightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness Of statuts a
Matter Of Growth.
We have been itwenty.one years
making this statue effective for the
purposes for which It was enacted,
The Knight case was discouraging
and seemed to remit to the states the
whole available power to attack and
suppress the evils Of the trusts.
Slowly. however, the errors OF that
Judgment was corrected, and only. In
the last three orsfour years has the
heavy hand Of thealaw been laid upon
the great illegat combinations that
haye exercised such Iansabsolute do:
ma XNafsour4tpds
Criminal prosecutions have been.
brought and a number are pending,
but juries have felt averse to convict
ing for jail sentences, and Judges have
been most reluctant oImpose such sen!
fences on men Of respectable standing
in i society whose offense lids been.
regarded as merely statutory. Still.
as the offenset becomes better UNDER
stood and the committing oi&it par
takes more Of stlidled and 5aeliberaic
defiance OF the law. Se can be CONT
dent that jurIes wills convict Tndivid-
uals and that jail sentences will be
imposed. s5 XIX SOS
The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard OIL case the Sill.
preme and circuit courts found the
combination TO be "a monopoly OF the
Interstate business OF refining, trans
porting. and marketing petroleum and
its products. effected and maintained
through thirty.seven different cor.
porations, the stock OF which was
held by; New Jersey company. It
in effect commanded the dissolution
OF this combination. directed the
transfer and pro:rata distribution by
the Now Jersey; company OF the
stock held by 1t in the thirty.seven
corporations to and among Its stock.
holders. and he corporations and in.
dividuai defendants Sere enjoineh
from c%onspiring or combining to ire.
store such monopoly; and all agree
ments between the subsidiary corpor.
atoms tending to produce or bring
about further violations OF the act
were enjolued.
In the Tobacco case. the court
found that the Individual defendants,
twenty.nine In number. had been en-.
gagged In a successful effort to &C.
quire complete dominion over the
manufacture. sale. and distribution OF
tobacco. In this country and abroad,
and that this had been done by com.
blnatlons made with n purpose and
effect to stl1e competition, control
prices. and establish n monopoly, not
only In the manufacture OF tobacco,
but also Of tin-foil and lIcorice used
In Its manufacture and Of It's products
OF cigars. cigarettes. and snufrs. The
tobacco suit presented n far more
complicated and difficult case than
the Standard OH suit for a decree
which would effectuate The will Of the
court and cpd the violation OF the
statute There was here no single
ho1Jtr- -t L.S'F-..tH