Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-09-18
Address of President Tuu at Detroit,
Mich. on Trusts.

My Fellow Citizens
! proposed to take uu th, question
which haas occupied the attention ot
shc American people tot now 20 wears.
thar ol Industrial combinations
known az trusts. Durug the last
year ~, hove had two grcat decisions
hy tine supreme court of the United
states The, are epoch making. ana
the punli, har not set realized the
uttrct that those decisions are certain
e. have.
Persons Who do not understand the
law nave great deal tu say, witch
is Intended to lead 10, public 90 the
u,uDf thst In SOME way 90 other the
uprcmc court has cmasculatcd the
statute and prevented ~ operation
against objectionable aad injurious
trade combinations and yousp.racicS
Nothing is further from the truth.
When tho statgtc was passed in
1890. the expressions used 100 10 TO
define its object aud what it WAS
proposed therein tu druouucc us uu-
lawful W,r, not new. bat tbrt were
sufficiently broad and indefinite to
require judicial construction tu settle
their meaning Congress was dealing
with subi'ct matter Ia respect Co
which IL may hc assumed that the
Legislators themselves were not clear
as o. the exact limitations of the
lm,luius uf th, words in th, statute
thrN V'r. passing They knew there
: tl4 an cNil which th,S hoped Co zee
strain 20, enactment of this law. aud
! they relied upon courts iu tHyit COM
strurtiou o' th, law tu hedge about
It's operation such restriction as
would prevent the statute from being
su Vido iu Its application as tu involve
labsurdit, and the tmpracti,ahir IN"
early decisions uuccr the law cannot
| ur said tu hatc been fortunate. The
| decision iu what be- known as tho sugar
( TRUST rusc.-thr knight case was re-
BllN rrtrugfudc step and one which
| seemed tu limit much tho uprratiun
uf The statut, ~ encouraged the or
! sanitation uf umhinatiunH which IA,
same court has since found tn violate
' tho statute The case could not he
| effectively presented TO the court bee
Caus, thv record had NOT been proper.
k made up aud the questions urisine
we're treated in tine opinion iu such
o. way NN W NNhf wv INN'| y ..N''Al 'NNff
operation of thp law would uc mos'
Rystrictod because ~ limits nt trd'
fcu jurisdiction indeed. some aN
officers of the Toycrnmont did mol
hesitate TO say that under this de-
lcisiou there was uttl, hope of reach
ms the ryil ahmed az through action
Sow would Ike to ask MI nryai
or any of tho othrr puhlicisls am,
iurists who have been d"nounrinr
this opinion as the surrender of th'
rights of the people ana an usurpa
ton ut judicial power % tell Tho pub
llc what particular contract ur re-
lstraint uf interstate trade De woul'
condemn which would not be- con
dcmncd within this definition ut tn,
court The difficulty with the litcra
construction of the statute is that !
would dcnouncr a great many mino
or incidental restraints ot trade whicl
, made the statute ridiculous an
weakened its effect and lent supper
to criticisms aud cuntcmptuuus treat
! ment of the statute hy those VIII
= were open o. its passage and On
iorcrmcnt
For instance. take the instance cite
r. by A. federal circuit Judge, iu whic
= he said that under the literal con
p struction ot the statute which mus
= be enforced, if there we're two person
. doing u Nagon-eNpress business acros
I u state line, and they united In part
, ncrship, the union ~ "a" partnrrshi
. would be a restraint of interslat
4 trade in violation Of the statute sue