The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1911-09-18
KEPT eUSY IN MICHIGAN ME-
TROPOLlS. MAKING SPEECHES
-ONE ON TRUSTS"
He WANTS NO AMENDMENTS
President Says He is Against Any
Emerdment to the Antitrust Law,
Which is Valuable Government
Asset and instrument

Detroit, Mich, Sept, lS-PresideA
TAFT arrived here a. : o'clock this
morning ana started the days pro
gran with every minute OF the nine
ana orc-hlll hours stay accounted
for.
Besides an address at the state foir
and at PCntaiN. his most important
address was reserved for the Cham
ber OF Commerce MncAeon, where he
discussed Trusts"
In this address he said, in part:
MY Fellow Citizens: 1 propose to
take up the question which has occu
pied the attention OF the American
people for now 20 years, that of in
dustrial combinations known as
Trusts" During the last year we
have had two great decisions by the
supreme court of the United States.
They are epoch making, and the pub
lie has not yet come to realize the
effect that those decisions are Ger
tain to have. 1t is not that the con-
strIction which the court has put
upon the aCt is different from that
which most members OF the profes.
sion, and most subordinate courts
and indeed the supreme court it..
sell had before indicated as the
proper construction Of the statute,
but il is that ii is now finally set
tied, by two fully considered decisions
in respect TO two of the largest and
most powerful OF these combinations
what their illegality consists in, and
how they are to be treated, III view
OF the finding that they are Illegal
and do violate the provisions of the
so-called antitrust o. Sherman Act.
Persons who don OF understand
the effect OF these decisions and real
ly do not understand the law have
great deal to say which is intended
to lead the public to the belief
that in some way or other the SUI
preme court has emasculated the
statute and prevented its operation
against Objectionable and injurious
trade combinations and conspracies.
Notninc is further from the truth.
when the statute was passed in
1890 the expressions used in it to de.
fine its object and what it was pro-
posed therein TO denounce as unlawful
were not new, but they were suffi-
ciently broad and indefinite to re-
quire judicial construction TO settle
their meaning Congress was dealing
with a subject matter in respect to
which it may be assumed that the
legislators themselves were not clear
as to the exact limitations of the
meaning of the words in the statute
they were passing. They knew there
was an evil which they hoped to re
strain by the enactment OF this law.
and tAey relied upon the courts in
their construction Of the law to hedge
about its operation such restriction
as would prevent the statute from
being so wide in its application as
to involve absurdity and the imprac.
ticable The early decisions under the
law can not be said to have been
fortunate The decision in what was
known as ;he Sugar Trust case-the
Knight case-was really a retrOgrade
step and one which seemed TO limi-
much the operation of the statute
it encouraged the organization of
combinations which the same court
has since found violate the statute.
The case could not be effectively pre-
scented 10 the court because the record
had not been properly made up, and
the questions arising were treated
in the opinion in such a way as to
give the impression that the opera
stlicted, because of the limits of fed
eral jurisdiction. Indeed, some law.
officers of the government did not
hesitate to say that under this de
cisioi there was little CtIpe OF
reaching the evil aimed at through
federal action. II has required 90