The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1911-12-05
!. aGI
561tlt . 4rona raso one-.

- from p.sse ers.)
:, irs Ia community to gquate
tn sEhe 5E68o- of2actioB aud lega ~
Tins 6naiIS,s q "a liGbeds ard 60 bte-
fssele che ttila frot .lom and gUuf ef
rpa epRab le+ tl1ont loss %
rea Dcieneg seE progress.
81 ebaaSss - tire Bdis Of pesisfon.
Z % q lks i-orfi7 of Estsressi5b.
No 4.zthte 81 rs frsf section De
ciares 70 be flltIaI ''evefy eOtitract,
coordination I'm the form u trust or
Otherwise or cUnsptrpcy g z restraint
q ft6deloF c6Eil1pfce 9riOuls the sew
tsIs sthtGS -oT Win fOrgItEn nations"
ard ~ the second declares guilty of o
delsehntt +6refy perFon wtp shall
n5oaob6lika or attempt,tO fIlOUopO!ize
or combine or eOiiSFfFe with ami other
person 4ofmoa0poIize nny part Of the
trade % commerce bf'ttJe several states
O. With foreign nntiOnS"
ia two early GnE6s. where the statute
EeaR invoked TO enjoin Il tf.unsporta-
lt0n Ente 0Ereemenr between inter
state Fnilroad companies. It was held
that Il WINS no defense to show That
tie aGreement as to rates complained
OF. was reasonable at common law. be
Cause &c WINS said that the statute was
directed against all contrnctS md com:
hEnatiOns inrrestra!nt Of trnde. whether
reasonable at common law or not. II
yyns plain from the record. however,
That the contracts complained OF In
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub.
se1uent eases the court snid That the
statute should be given reasonable
construction md refused to include
within its Inhibition certain contrac-
tuaI restraints OF trade which it de-
nominated rs incidental or as indirect
These Eases OF restl1Int OF trade that
the court excepted from the operation
OF the statute were instances which
az common law would have been call
ed reasonable. In the Standard OH
nnd tobacco cases. therefore. the court
moL. law aud IN defining exceptions to
the literal application Of the statute
only substituted for the test of being
Incidental or indirect that of being
reasonable. ind this without varying
in the slightest the actual scope and
erect Of the stntute. In other words.
an the cuses under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted In its
construction the rule Mt common law.
It has been said that the court by in
Producing into the constitution OF the
statuta common law distinctions has
epnasciIIated It This IS obviously UNI
tue 6v its Judgment every contract
and coordination in restraint OF inter-
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect OF controlling prices
by sliding competition or OF establish
ing in whole or in part monopoly OF
Euch trade Is condemned by the stat
ute Tho most extreme critics cannot
InstapcesN, case that ought to be con-
demnetl under the statute which Is not
brought within it's terms as thus con-
8trued.
The suggestion is also made that the
supreme court by its decision in the
last f-vo eases has committed to the
eourt the underlined and unlimited dis
cretion to determine whether a case OF
restraint of trade is within the terms
or the statute This Is wholly untrue.
A reasonable restraint or trade at COM
mon law Is we'll understood and Is
clearly defined 1t does not rest in the
discretion OF the court. 1t must be
limited to accomplish the purpose or
lawful main contract to which in order
that It shall be enforceable Mt all 1t
must be incidental. II It exceed the
needs OF that contract It is void.
The test Of reHSona blenesS was never
applied by the court at cOmman law
to contracts or combinations or con
spIracIes In restraint OF trade whose
purpose was or whose necessary 'enect
would be to st6e competition. to con-.
troll prices or establish mOnopolies,
The courts never assumed power to
say that such contracts or Combina.
tions or consplracieS might be lawful
II the parties to them were only mod
--eratayin the use of the power thus Sc
cured and did not exnct from the pub
lie too great and exOrbitnnt prices. 1t
IS true that many theorists and others
engaged IN business violating the stat
ute have hoped that some such line
could be drawn by courts. but no court
OF authority has ever attempted 1t.
Certainly there IS nothing in the dect-
sions OF the latest two cases from
which such dangerous theory OF tu'
ClicInl discretion In enforcing this stat
ute can derive the slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness of Statute
s Matter of Growth.
we have hrGu twenty one years max
ing this 4tntutr effective for the pur-
noses FOR Which It was e.lhcted. The
Knight case was dlscournglng and
seemed TO remit to he suites the whole