Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1911-05-17
JUSTICE HaRLANps OPINION.

In view Of the momentous lmpor-
lance OF the decision OF the Supreme
Court IN the Standard Oil case interest
centered in the dissenting opinion OF
Associate Justice Harlan, whose views,
if adopted by the court, wouid nave
hsen severe blow to all the giant
combinations.
Justice Harlan held that his brother
Judges had no right to usurp the
function of the legislative branch OF
the government by writing into the
statute differentiation between
reasonable and unreasonable.
He declared that Congress had resisted
all appeals to SO amend the act, and
that there was every reason to believe
that such an amendment never coulc
II put through the legislative branch.
Under these circumstances, and IN
their extremity, great &ggregatlons OF
wealth applied to the court IN an effort
10 have it construe the law in way
that would be fiat reversal Of what 1t
had held on two previous occasions.
Justice Harlan declined to be a party
TO such a reversal aud hence his dis
scnting opinion. He denounced as
the most alarming tendency OF the
day" the tendency TO judicial leglsla
ton. Men of power, he said, always
we're trying to get the courts to do what
Congress would not.
.Iustic" Harlan said:
As to all The Chief Justice has said
about the illegal combination OF this
oil company and its coming within the
antitrust act, | cordially concur
There are, however, some things IN
this opinion, and that are to result from
this opinion. which think may very
well alarm thoughtful men; and am
unwilling to let them pass with any
lea that | approve them.
TIE antitrust act OF 1890 vas passed
At 4 time when this country was III a
state of great unrest, arising out OF an
enormous aggregation Of capital i'll a
few hands, and arising out Of combna-
tions which had their hands upon the
throat Of this country 10 respect even
to the necessities OF life, and Congress
had before it the great question AS TO
how these evils we're to he ren1edied,
50 far as Congress had the power to
remedy them, Tic question was:
What shall We do?'
They tiually, after great debate by
able statesmen, passed the antitrust
act Of 1890 Let me call your atten-
ton to few words Of that act. 1t pro-
vdeS, IN section /:
That every contract. combination
in form OF trust or otherwise or con
spiracy
Not in restraint Of trade, as the
learned chief Justice said 10 part Of his
remarks. hut----
- ia restaint OF trade
among The several states and With
foreign nations, is nearby declared 10
be illegal. -
The men who were in the Congress
II the United States at that time knew
what the common law was about the
restraint Of trade. They knew what
restraints Of trade at common law were
lawful, and what were unlawful. But
Congress said:
The surest way to protect Interstate
commerce is not to start upon any dis
tiuctions at all as to the kinds Of trade,
but. every contract IN restraint ol
trade among the states is hearty de-
rl,r.J IN l1 ILLEGAL. -
Then in the second section:
Every person who shall monopollze
or attempt to monopolze, or combine,
or couSpire With any other person or
persons to monopolize--"
MouopolIze what?
Any part Of interstate trade or
commerce. shall be liable to the penal
ties prescribed by this act. 3"
That is not all.
Ever contract, combination III
form Of trust or otherwise, OF COP.
spracy in restraint Of trade, or COM
merce among the states, is nearby de-
clared illegal. !"