New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-17
IT'S MORAL EFFECT.

arc talking of amending the Sherman
antitrust act because of the supreme
Courts declaration that its prohloitloh
applies only to combinations unuuls
restraining trade. but it Is lmpropaoie
that they will accomplish their suegesteu
nurpose. Nor is it desirable that they
should. The Standard Oil decision has
cleared UP all the doubts that existed
regarding the Sherman act and leaves IL
with the force of a virtually unanimous
nublic opinion behind it. The law Is all
the stronger because the impression eA-
listing in many quarters that 1t was re'o-
lrtionary and. if strictly enforced, I'M
practicable has been dissipated. NO
fear remains that It may prove indls-
criminately destructive. No occasion is
left for handling 1t gingerly or for watch
ing with fear and trembling each resort
to it, lest the various agreements ana
contracts that are Indispensable to trade
even under the liveliest of competitive
conditions might prove to be outlawed.
Doubt rs TO the Sherman act was
most strongly felt after Judge Lacombe,
In the United States Circuit Court OF
this district. expressed the opinion IN
the Tobacco Trust case that the Sner-
man act, as it had been construed by
the Supreme Court prohibited every
contract or combination I'm restraint OF
competition" adding: "Size Is not
made a test. Two individuals who have
"been driving rival express wagons be-
tween villages in two contiguous states
"who enter into combination TO JON
forces and operate single line restrain
"an existing competition" This illus
tration put in q concrete way. so that the
public clearly understood it, the crude
unrea soma bleness of the Sherman act If
interpreted 10 forbid every contract in
restraint of trade no matter how es-
sential to the existence Of trade itself.
The immediate effect of this declaration
was TO dlscredit the act and TO give force
to a movement for its amendment. The
wise counsel prevailed TO wait until the
Supreme Court had spoken in the great
cases. And the result is Chief Justice
Whites dictum. doubtless occasioned
by Judge IacOmbes words and the dis
cussion which they provoked, that the
law contemplates the prevention and
punishment only Of undue" restraint of
trade. Instead of being revolutionary.
the statute conforms to the established
principles of the common law and is
grounded upon the experience Of the
Anglo-Saxon race in protecting itself
from improper interference with the
free action Of competition. When it is
shown by its enforcement not TO afford
adequate protection the time will have
come 10 talk of its amendment.
TO amend the act now would raise new
doubts and questions and start afresh
| Clouds could be raised again, as they
have been in the past AS it is now. the
corporations which are proceeded against
under the statute can no longer suggest
that they are the mere victims of blum
dering legislation which makes it a
crime 10 transact business" The statute
does not make it a crime 10 transact
business. 1t makes il criminal to trans
act business by oppressive and extortion-
ate methods. To fall under the con-
demnation of such a statute, now that
its purport is fully understood by the
public. involves a penalty that will be
felt.
( Moreover, the hand of the federal
prosecutor will he strengthened The
tentative stage is past The govern
ment will no longer lie under the accusa-
ton of employing law which makes
all business criminal. nor will it be held
in check by the feeling that 1t is using
Il weapon Of unknown capacity for de-
Struction. IL may proceed with conf
dence, sure Of the unhesitating support
Of public opinion. and that will be q
great moral advantage. especially in en-
forcing the criminal sections of the act