The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-12-05
MESSAGE OF
 THE PRESIDENT
M. Taft Champions the Anti - -T
 trust Statute.
NEW REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective = -one-FederaI Incorporation Reeom- mended and Federal Corporation -- Commission Proposed-The Test of -~"ReasonabIeness."
 To the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives:
 -s This message is the first of several which shall send to congress during the interval between the opening of its regular session and it's adjourn ment for the Christmas holidays. The amount of information to be commit nicated as to the operations of the government, the number of important subjects calling for comment by the executive and the transmission to con gress of exhaustive reports of special commissions make it impossible to in- clude in one message of a reasonable length discussion of the topics that ought to be brought to. the attention .ef the national legislature at it's first regular session. e,ey v
 The Anti-trust Law-The Supreme Court Decisions. sfs9 h In May last the supreme court. hand ed down decisions in the suits in ,equi- ty brought by the United States to. en- join the further maintenance of the Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri- cen Tobacco trust and to secure their dissolution. The decisions .are epoch making and serve to advise the busi- ness world authoritatively. of the scope and operation of the antitrust act of 1a90s The decisions do not de part in any. substantial way from the previous decisiohs of the court in con struin& and applying this important statute, but they %cIar5fy those deci- sions by further defining the already admitted exceptions to, the literal con- struction. of the act. By the decrees they furnish a useful precedent as to the proper method of dealing with the c&pitAls and property of illegal. trusts These decisions suggest the need and wisdom of additional or supplemental legislation to make 1t easier for the eutire business community. to square with the rule of action and legality tilns finally established and to pre- 0<4 SC tAxC OO0Culs lICCuOlu duu spur Ol reasonable competition without loss of real efficiency or progress.
 No Change In the Rule of Decision,
 Merely In lts Form of Expression. s.sThe statute in it's first section de eIares to be illegal .krefy contract, combination h the 1Dil1 of trust Or etherwise or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the sev- ,eral states or with foreign nations" and in the second declares guilty of misdemeanor every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce of the several states or with foreign nations'' -. =
 In two early cases, where the statute was invoked to enjoin a transporta- ton rate agreement between inter- state railroad companies, it was held that 1t was no defense to show that the agreement as to rates complained q was reasonable at common law, be- cause it was said that the statute was directed against all contracts and com binatiOns in restraint of trade, whether reasonable at common law or not. It was plain from the record, however. that the contracts complained of in those cases would not have been deem- I'd reasonable at common law In sub .Bequent cases the court said that the Statute should be given reasonable Construction and refused to include within its inhibition certain contrac-. tual restraints of trade which 1t de nominated as incidental or as indirect. = These cases ofirestrant of trade that khe court excepted from the operation Of the statute were instances which -at common law would have been call ed reasonable. In the Standard Oil and tobacco cases, therefore, the court merely adopted the tests of the com mon law and in defining exceptions to 3he literal application of the statute only substituted for the test of being Incidental or indirect that of being reasonable. and this without varying an the slightest the actual scope and effect of the statute. In other words, all the cases under the statute which 1s9SO Ao" OCCA ucCl0cu WOulu udfC been decided the same way if the court had originally accepted in its construction the rule at common law.
 1t has been said that the court by in- trOducing into the construction of the ptatute common law distinctions has efnasculated it. This is obviously un- true. By it's judgment every contract and combination in restraint of inter- state trade made with the purpose or Necessary effect of controlling prices by stffling competition or of establish Ing in whole or in part monopoly of Buch trade is condemned by the stat ute The most extreme critics cannot Instance a case that ought to be con- demned under the statute which is not bfuught within its terms as thus con- strued.
 The suggestion is also made that the supreme court by it's decision in the inst two cases has committed to the court the undefned and unlimited dis cretion to determine whether, a case of restraint of trade is within the terms of the statute. This is wholly untrue. A-reasonable restraint of trade at com anon law is well understood and is clearly defined. It does not rest i'll the discretion Of the court. It must be limited to accomplish the purpose of a lawful main contract to which in order