The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-26
|RLAN TAKES
|DURT TO TASK
.siste Justice Files Dis
bpting Opinion in Stand
ard Oil Case.
cHT Of REASON" DOES
NOT APPEAL TO JURIST
has as Mischieyous the
rsdifcation Put Upon De-
cree of Lower Court.


Ia the major opinion of the supreme
~ the United States in the Standard
AZ as he was on the day that
III uas announced. Associate Justice
!, today filed in court his formal
.otlnr opinion in that suit.
oraI attack on the court for hold
,hsf only unreasonable or undue re-
/ ~ Of rradc are violations of the law
NED the outline for today's broad
A arajnst the opinion.
vent further however. and criti-
4 the court for modifying the de-
Al the lower court so as 10 permit
rrbsidlary companies TO enter into
,ments among themselves. and eN-
"A conviction that instead OF the
m riying quiet to the business OF the
<,rv Il would throw il into confusion
A ;ecIte widely extended and harassing
'ilon the injurious effects of which
4 "a felt for many years to come.
n since the case was decided on
4 Is. Justice Harlan has been prepar-
hIs dissenting opinion, and II was
. rmpleted until today. One OF the
. fhanses made, ii is said, was to in
a nuotation from the decision of
q nov prcsident) Taft in the Adds
+ pipe case. in which Judge Taft said
scording to the decision of the su-
y court Of the United States all re-
.jnts. whether reasonable or unreason-
4 under the common law were for
a by the statute.
iMischievous Modification
eonnection with what he terms as
<chleyous modification" Justice Har-
|.uoics the chief justice as saving that
IDss not necessarily follow that be-
! an Illegal restraint of trade or an
|uni to monopolize or monopoliza-
psulted from the combination and
l5ansfer Of the stocks OF the sub
.ry corporations TO the New Jersey
ration. that like restraint or at
"a 10 monopolize or monopolization
q necessarily arise from agreements
zen one or more OF the subsidiary
nations after the transfer of the
h BIZ the New Jersey corporation"
hiking this language In connection
other parts OF the opinion" says
|lcs Harlan. ''the subsidiary COM
rs are thus. in effect. informed-un-
N. 7 think-that although the New
~ corporation being an Illegal COM
non must 90 out of existence, they
join in All agreement 10 restrain
nirce against the states. il such re-
|nt be not undue
IN his oral remarks Justice Harlan
tes himself largely to criticism OF
court for holding that not every re-
lnt of trade violates the law He
rates that the court reversed its
1er rulings In the s-Mtssourl
rht and joint traffic associations
Cites Decision of Taft.
1tioe Harlan. referring TO other de-
Us as bearing out his interpreta ton
70 one OF Judge Taft. now presi
! IN the Addyston Pipe company case.
|1dse Taft said" continued Justice
IN. THAT according to the decision
nls court IN the freight association
contracts in restraint of interstate
5portatiop were within the statute
her The restraints could be regarded
!sasonable In common law or not
jn reading the opinion just delivered"
.te Harlan adds. "the first inquiry
y be that as the court is unanimous
cdinr that the particular things done
me Standard Oh company and its
1diHry companies in this case were
~ under the antitrust act whether
+ Things were in reasonable or un-
plaole restraint of interstate COM
81 why was II necessary TO make
Faoorate argument, as is done in the
lon: TO show that according 10 the
7I@ reason the act passed bv con-
, should be interpreted as IL it con-
81 the word 'unreasona ble' or the
undue?'
The Light of Reason.
'se only answer which. in frankness,
pe given TO this question. is that
eourt intends 10 decide that its de-
Hs Judgment. fifteen years ago, TO
ssnect that the act permitted no re-
mt Ivy Whatever of interstate commerce.
.nsr reasonable or unreasonable was
! ~ accordance with the rule OF rea-
In effect the court says that 1t
ncH. for the frat time. bring the
1sHon under the light of rea son,
appy the rule Of reason 10 the
snon 10 be decided. have the au-
~ OF this court for saying that
~ course OF proceeding on its part
= ne/.judicIal legislation
5loe ,.oe Harlan maintains the court
ua nave replied omphaticaIlv to the
ssaIo OH attorneys when they in
. D On reversal Of the former rul-
oi the court as follows:
'M. question. according 70 our prac-
snd view, is not open for further dis
VIZ mere This court long ago de-
ne.eB, held. ID that the act inter
a,f 'a lts words in their ordinary ac-
'snon prohibits all restraints OF inter-
/, trommerce bv comhIuatious in what
r,u,n and whether reasonable or un-
,yaspie (2) the question relates TO
els OF public policy in reference 10
ihntee irs among the states and with
1tn nations. and congress alone can
M'n 70 s,Isf, lss subject; 90 this court
= H. under the guise OF construc-
should assume TO determine
~ OF public policy: 80 the parties
I, 50 70 congress and obtain an amend
~ tne anti-trust act II they think
son. ,u court WAS wrong i'm It's former
-'ens' and (5l this court cannot and
,ihol 1udiclaliy Iegislate. since It's
= Isons le 10 declare law. while II be-
e the law '''' ''''''''' -