The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1911-09-18

include such a limiting word in the
statute. This is not fair to the court
1t is true that the court, in the early
days of the construction of the stat
ute had said that it could not limit
the statute in effect by excluding
from its operation what was deemed
reasonable at common law But as
other cases arose it found it neces-
sary to make exceptions to the literal
operation of the words restraint of
trade" and it did so by excepting
what was minor, or incidental, or in
direct, and including only those cases
where the chief object of the CON
tract or combination was the res
traint In doing so the court said
that it must give the statute rea5-
enable construction and not~>,sEe
leading to absurd or ~1Ious re-
suits In the last .r,<o cases the court
did not cbaugr 80 constance of the
reasoning and scope of the previous
! decisions. but only treated the eX-
ceptions previously termed 'inciden-
/ tai and indirect" as excluded from
the operation of the statute in the
light of reason, /. e., in conformity
to the evil sought to be reached
Now. in what way has this injured
the public veal? What combinations
or arrangements can escape under
this Interpretation that any sensible
man would wish to have condemned?
Did the court not condemn the
Standard Oil Co, the father of all
trusts, in the history of which every
form of criminal illegality was prac-
ticed? Did it not, on the other hand,
condemn the Tobacco Trust, of
much later origin and framed under
the advice of cunning counsel for
the very purpose of evading the con-
domination of the statute and at the
same time securing and enjoying
the monopoly the trainers of the
statute intended to prevent and pun
ish?
Let me renew again the invita-
ton to any of the voeiferous critics
of the decision of the supreme
court to use their legal imaginations
and state the facts of a case not CON
! demned within the rule OF construc-
/ ton put upon the statute by the SUI
preme court, but included within
their construction of it, which reas-
enable men would~think it wise OF
proper to make criminal
Now, | desire to call attention tc
a very broad distinction that many
persons have failed to draw or per
ceive between reasonable construc
ton of the statute which the su
preme court has insisted upon an'
the introduction of the word "reas
enable" in the statute so as to lea'
to a result by which combination
for the purpose Of restraining trade
with view to controlling prices an
maintaining a monopoly could b.
held to be reasonable and thus law
full Until the decision Of the su
preme court in these last two case
there was a clearly defined hope il
the minds of many business me-
who had reached the conclusion tha
. it was impossible to conduct bust
ness on a free competitive basis, an
that il was necessary to secure mo
, nopolistic control of prices and com
petition in order to make bushes
reasonably profitable, that in som
way or other the statute could b
construed so as TO make it appl
only to unreasonable monopolies an
unreasonable exclusion of competi
ton and control of prices. The
had in their minds the thought tina
in some way or other standar
could be set by which If those VIII
enjoyed the monopoly and the res
traint of competition and the con
troll Of prices did not abuse thei
power to the point of seeking fron