Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1911-05-19
THE STANDARD OIL DECISION

the against the Standard On
Company years this litigation has been in progress 1t
involved Importance in the counys economic
life and upon it believed rested the potency OF
end certain practices that fettered commercial freedom
and menaced the nations welfare.
standponts from which the courts decision
must be vewed first effect regards the particular
that its broader bearing upon such prob
Sherman anti trust act designed to solve
1t is held in the first place Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey together with subsidiary corporations
monopoly trade and that within months must
be dissolved Concerning this particular trust therefore the
decision precise greeted by the majority of the
American people bringing timely relief from interests that IN
of counsel have waved the black flag over the land
as others in former days had waved it the sea.
general aspect however, the decision is far from
being precise its value is creumsbed and
impaired.
The Sherman declares unreservedy that all
combinations restraint of trade are Illegal
the opinion delivered by Chief Justice White
that only such combinations in undue or un
reasonable of trade ma be considered illegal
Such ruling Interpretation but rather evasion
of the law derived from the statute but injected into
it, and bears all the marks of judicial legislation
1t Is from portion of the opinion that justice Harlan,
though minority of dssents emphaticay and SO log
ay He meets the squarey by holding that such term
as undue has place whatever in either
the language general intent of the law and that when the
majority justices imported into the statute such meaning
they ovrsepped of the judiciary and entered that
which rightfully belongs to congress alone
The oundness of this contention evidenced the fact that
has repeatedly declined to Sherman antitrust
act application might be limited to particular types
methods of combinations restraint of trade Indee the word
unreasonable ITSELF very adjective employed by the court
rejected by when the law was framed tnd ADOPTED
1890 despite the most aggressive efforts OF certain interests TO
have inserted number of subsequent attempts
to ngra upon the stands qualifying phrase
but none of them has succeeded
II is therefore court has done what the makers
of the law themselves persseny refused do has set the
principle combinations in restraint OF trade are for
hidden but only exceed certain limits of monopoly
What these mits How are they to be determined ana
by whomY
By applying of reason the court 1t just
here that the decision becomes ndecsve and
filings wide the realm of dmness and confusion For
under of the law mOnopes must be prosecuted
not they illegal but because they are bad Other mo-
nopo escape prosecution not because they are legal but
because under decision the department OF justice
may they and therefore decline to
We shall thus have general divisions of trusts those
all in restraint of trade, those that are duly
and finally those that unduy So How
will be the boundary line between these latter
two twilight zone arises just here
Such condition, believe is as unsatisfactory to business
the For it will thus be possible for the
corporations and what interests shall
under the antitrust Law Two trusts may IN this WISE
he restraining trade It will be the departmental official
attack spare the other his opinion or IN
.nation condition, submit is far from desirable TOR
laws susceptible of caprcous application
Whether would have been wise expedent from the
standpoint of the business of the country for the court to
interpreted this statute strictly in accordance with ITS UNI
questionable meaning and intent beside the point Judicial
legislation judicial modification OF astatu positive IN It's terms
clear its meaning and purpose nevere corrected
remeded the against winch
signed The plain duty of the courts in such to interpret
the according its true intent and purpose regardless OF
the consequences
We may grant, that this law as it stands today is ex
cessvey stringent that instances might work unwar
hardship But that be there then all the greater
being literally and unequvocay constructs for
the of getting rid of really undesirable statute
lies unfnchng enforcement If the Sherman antitrust act
and calculated to njue honest business congress
should take due action But certainly neither the duty nor the
prerogave of the supreme nter the field of legislation
in that this end may be accomplished.
The function of the judiciary to interpret laws not to make
modify them.
Viewed this light the decision of the court in the
Standard Oil timely and acceptable far the
particular with which it deals concerned Indeed is In
decision But the of the
thought believe will be that the decision
the question that most far reaching in its the
question whether the Sherman antitrust law
is evaded This the pivotal issue that required
reading into the statute meaning
of the court leaves the question in