The Julesburg grit-advocate., 1911-12-14

Com~.iis,on Propessd-rhs Test Of
aReAsonabiensss."
fo the Senate and House of Repre-
seniativcs:
This message is the first Of several
which shall send 10 congress during
the interval between the opening OF
hts regular session and its aIjourn-
lDent for the Christmas holidays. The
rEoount OF information to be commit
nicated ms TO the operations OF the
government, the number of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con
sress of exhaustive reports OF special
commissions make it impossible to in
slude in one message of n rc:Sonlb bile
aength a discussion of the topics that
s1sht to be broush; TO the attention
81 the national legislature at its first
regular session.
Tire Antitrust iaw-The Supr.me
Court Decisions.
in May last the supreme coIrt hand
I'd Gown decisions in the suits in cUui-
pi"uSul W Niit tiihS'I SJlhttN ~ I'll
join the further maintenance of the
Standard Oil trust and Of the Ameri.
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
maxim. and serve TO advise the bust
ncss world authoritativcly OF the
scope and operation of the antitrust
act OF 1890 The decisions do not de
ri ,I,s,f, . tt.,l H.
previous decisions OF the court in con
STRUNG and applying this important
statute. but they clarity those deci
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions 10 the literal con,
etruction OF the act. by the dccrccs
they furnish a usefu. precedcut as to
the proper method of dea lin. with the
capital and property of Illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need ANA
wisdom of additional or supplemental
&sislation to make it easier for the
entire business community to square
with the r;llc Of action and legality
thns finally established and to pre-,
serve the benefit freedom .ad spur of
reasonable competition without loss Of
Eeal efficiency or progress.
No Change In th. Rule Of p.cjsien
Merely In Its Form Of Expression.
The statute in lis first section do
e'ares TO be i!!ega! every contract
continuation N the form of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy in restrain;
N trade or commerce among the Scv-
fral states ur Will! foreign NATIONS"
1nd In the second declares guilty of II
@isdemcanor every person who shall
snonopo!ize Or attempt to monopo.;ze
- combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize any part or the
tsadc or commerce of the Severa! states
81 with foreign nations"
In two early cases. whore the statute
vas invoked 10 cajoin Il tr',nSnn,ta-
ijon rate agreement between inter.
Sate railroad companies. II WIS held
fhas it was no defense to show thar
she agreement as TO rates complained
$f was reasonable NJ common law. Ie
essTse " was said that tho statute WAS
directed against all contracts and com
s,nafions In restraint of trade. whrt lcr
reasonable at common law or not 1t
vas plain from the record, however
that the contracts complained Of in
those cases would not have been deem.
ed reasonable ut common law. In sub
oeQcent cases the court said that the
Watute should be given Il rcnScna ble
construction and refused tn include
within its inhibition certain ccotr,c
tusl restraints of trade which il de-
1eminated as incidental or Us Indirect
These cases Of restraint OF trade that
tne court excepted from the urcrarion
sf the statute were instances which
NJ common law would have been call.
al reasonable. In the Standard Oil
and tobacco eases. therefore. the cour,
merely adopted the tests Of III" com.
mon law and in defining exceptions TO
the literal application of the Sta,r,e
>0!y substituted for the test Of rein:
accidental or Indirect that Of hein:
reasonable. and this without varyin.
10 the slightest The actual scope and
fHect of the statute. In other words.
~ the cases under the Stairtc which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
eourt Ind originally accepted in iIs
eeustruction the rule Mt common law.
1t has been said that the court by in.
PRODUCING into the construction of the
statute common law distinctions has
Smascnlated it. This is obviously nm
tree. Rr its Judgment every contract
and combination in restraint of inter.
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect of controlling prices
- stifiins competition or OF establish.
anS in whole or in part n monopoly Of
sach trade is condemned by the stat.
ufe. The most extreme critics cannot
Anstancc case that ought TO he con-
aemret! under the statute which is not
brought within its terms rs thus con-
str,scd,
The suggestion is also made that the
So1ren.c court b. ills decision in the
hst two cases has committed TO the
seErt :'.r unslcanr! md unlimited dis
srrtIup "a de,c-Iri:,c whether Il case OF