The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-12-05

admitted exceptions to the literal con.
struction Of the act. By the DEGREES
they furnish a useful precedent aa to
thu proper method of dealing with the
capital and property Of illegal trusts.
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom of additional or supplemental
Legislation to make 1t easier for the
entire business community to square
With the rule OF action and legality
thus finally established aud to pre-
serve the benefit. Freedom and spur. of
reasonable competition without. loss OF
reel efficiency or progress. e.
No Change In the Rule Of Decision,
Merely In lie Form Of Expression.
The statute In it's. first section de-
clares to be illegal every contract.
combination in the form Of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce among the sew.
eral states or with foreign nations"
and<in the second declares guilty Of a
misdemeanor "every person who shall
1onopolfze or attempt to monopolize
or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize any part Of the
trade or commerce Q f.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 al to rates complained
Of was reasonable at common law. be-
cause 1t was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com.
binations in. restraint Of trade. whether
reasonable at common law or o 1t
was plain from the record. however,
that the contracts complained of in
hose cases would not have been Deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
sequent cases the court said that the
statute should be given a reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its Inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints Of trade which It de-
nominated as Incidental or as inditect.
These cases Of RESTRAINT Of trade that
the court excepted from the operation
If 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
MOI law and in defining exceptions to
the literal application Of the statute
only substituted for the test Of being
incidental, or indirect. that. of being
reasonable. and this without varying
in. the slightest the actual scope and
effect Of the statute In: other wordss
:, nli the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
l,een decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted in its
construction the rule at common. law.
1t has been said that the court by In.
Producing into the construction Of the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated 1t. This il obviously un-
true. BY its judgment every contract
and combination in restraint Of inter.
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect of controlling prices
by stifiing competition or Of establish.
ing In whole or in. part a monopoly of
such. trade is condemned by the stat.
ute. The most extreme critics cannot
Instance a a g. that ought to be con-
leMned under the statute which is not
brought within its terms as thus con.
Strued. :"
The suggestion is also made that the
supreme court by its decision in the
lust two cases has committed to the
court the underlined aud unlimited dis
erection to determine whether n case of
restraint of trade is within the terms
ri the statute. This is wholly untrue.
\ reasonable restraint Of trade at com.