The Washington herald., 1911-05-31

decision in the tobacco trust case
has dulled the edge of criticism in
Congress over the-court's interpre-
tation of the Sherman antitrust
law in the light of reason as set
forth .in the Standard Oil opinion.
Of course, there are some Re-
publican insurgents of the La Fol-
lette type and a few radical Demo-
Gratis who still join with Associate
Justice Harlan in declaring that the
effect of the courts decisions in the
two big antitrust cases is to read
the qualifying word unreasonable"
into the Sherman antitrust statute.
1t was noticeable yesterday,
however, that most of the insur-
gents were inclined to accept the
Supreme Courts Interpretation of
the law as sweeping enough to in
clude all the monopolies and combi-
nations from which the public may
fear any harm.
The general impression is that
the Chief Justices further elucida-
ton of the law in the tobacco trust
case will put an effective quietus
upon the agitation for the amend
ment of the Sherman antitrust law.
ALL TRUSTS HIT.
One OF the Republican insurgents In the
one Of the most prominent
lawers III that body-de-
.lared yesterday that the two opinions
taken together wers broad and compre-
hensive enough to include not only all
but all attempts or acts in
an attempt to monopolize.
Special interest was attached by MEM
bers Of Congress to the Chief Justices
assertion in the tobacco trust decision
that the court had not read the word
unreasonable" into the law.
In the opinion Of government officials
the Supreme Court, by remanding the
trust case to the lower court
with directions that a plan be devised
not only for dissolving the combination.
but for recreating out of the elements
now composing 1t new condition which
shall be honestly In harmony with the
law, has opened the way for a further
judicial Interpretation Of the antitrust
law.
The effect Of the action Of the lower
court on the tobacco trust case will, IT
Is contended, be to Indicate to big busi-
ness" just where the line falls between
and unreasonable restraints
Of interstate commerce.
Considerable comment has been caused
by Associate Justice Harlan's sarcastic
references to the opinion Of the majority
Of the court, in his dissenting views. It
IS apparent that there is considerable
the court over the stand that the vener-
able Justice has taken In this matter.
Plan More Prosecutions.
It is impossible to say at this time what
plans the Department Of Justice will de-
velop as a result Of the two epoch-making
antitrust decisions The general impress
sion, however. is that the department will
move against several corporations in
cases where action has been held in
abeyance pending the courts interpreta-
ton Of the Sherman antitrust law
An Official close to the administration
had some interesting comments to
make yesterday upon Justice Harlan's
s..o NNv,<r t1f t. ~
and tobacco case.
According to this Official, Justice Har-
Ian has not always regarded the Judi
cial function as excluding the right to
interpret statutes in the Tight Of rea-
son." against which he complains SO
in the tobacco trust and
Standard OIL cases.
The statement Is made that Justice
Harlan himself has concurred in at
least one opinion in which the same
principal in regard to the rule of rea-
son was applied as in the Standard OIL
and tobacco trust cases. Said this Of
fetal:
"Mr. Justice Harlan, in his dissenting
opinion in the tobacco case, objects Wig.
orously to the application In the con-
struction Of the act Of Congress Of the
rule Of reason to which attention was
called by the Chief Justice In his opin.
lon IN the Standard Oil case. and again
In the tobacco case.
Justice Harlan declares that to insert
by construction the word unreasonable
DR. undue In the Sherman act 10 judicial
legislation. Congress. he says, has, in
language SO clear and simple that there
Is no room whatever for miscpnstruction,
signified its purpose to forbid every re-
strait Of trade In whatever form. to
whatever extent. whereas tho court under
the Chief Justices opinion inserts in the
law words which make Congress my
hat It means only to prohibit undue
Of trade. This he objects
to as amounting to Q reading into the
vet by the law-making branch Of the
and this. he contends, the
SQUIRT cannot. and ought not do.
Harlan Has Changea.
But Justice Harland has mot always
regarded the judicial function e ex-
Guiding the right to interpret statutes
IN the light OF reason and 10 refuss q
literal application to the words OF the
act where that would involve . mani
Test wrong.
an he oass e chush q ~ ns,y