Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1911-12-06
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE.

combination in the form of trust or
OF her"'1Se ar conspiracy in restraint
at trade or commerce among the sew
e,nl states or with foreign nations"
ami III the second declares guilty of a
niiSdeme;liFor every person who shall
MohOpollzp or attempt to monopoliZe
or combine or cOnspire with any other
person To monopo!iZe any part of the
trAde or commerce Of the several states
or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked to enioin transporta-
ton rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, it was held
that it was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
of was reaSonab at common law. be-
cause it was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and COM
binations in restraint of trade, whether
reasonable at common law or not. 1t
was 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
statute should be given a reasonable
construction and refused to include
within it's inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints Of trade which it de-
nominated as incidental or as indirect
These cases of RESTRAINT Of trade that
the court excepted from the operation
of the statute We're instances which
at common law would have been call
Ell reasonable. In the Standard Oil
and tobacco cases. therefore. the court
merely adopted the tests of the COM
mon 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 words,
all the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way if the
court had originally accepted in it's
construction the rule at common law.
1t has been said that the court by in
Producing into the construction Of the
ktatute common law distinctions has
rmasculated it This is obviously I'M
! 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 sitting competition or of establish
| ing in Whole or in part monopoly Of
! such trade is condemned by the stat
/ ute The most extreme critics cannot
| Instance case that ought to be con-
! demned 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
! last two cases has committed to the
| rOurt the underlined and unlimited dis
rretiOn to determine whether a case of
restraint Of trade ia within the terms
IF the statute This is wholly untrue.
A reasonable restraint Of trade at COM
mon law is we'll understood and is
clearly defined. 1t does not rest in the
discretion Cf the court 1t must be
limited to accomplish the purpose of Il
that it shall be enforceable at all it
| must be incidental. If it exceed the
needs of that contract it is void.
The test of reasonableness 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 effect
would be to sti1e competition, to con
troll prices or establish monopolies
The courts never assumed power tC
say that such contracts or combina
tons or cOnSpiracieS might be Lawful
if the parties to them were only mod
crate in the Use of the power thus Sc
cured and did not exact from the pub
lie too great and eXorbitant prices. Il
is true that many theorists and other:
engaged in business violating the stat
ute have hoped that some such lin,
could be drawn by courts, but no cour
of authority has ever attempted it
Certainly there is nothing in the deci
sions of the latest two cases from
which such a dangerous theory of ju
dicial discretion in enforcing this stat
ute can derive the slightest sanction.
Force and Effectiveness of Statute
Matter of Growth.
We have been twenty one years mali
ing this statute effective for the pul
poses for which it was enacted. TIL
Knight case was diScouragIng an
seemed to remit to the states the whOl
available power to attack and suppress
the evils of the trusts Slowly. howe
: err. the error of that Judgment was co
rected. and only in the last three {
! four years has the heavy hand of TT
law been laid upon the great illeg
combinations that have exercised SUE
an absolute dominion over many Of o,
industries Criminal prosecutions hay
been brought. and number are pen
ing but juries have felt averSe to co
i victing for Jail sentences and judg
I have been most reluctant to impo
such sentences on men of respectful
standing In society whose Offense b.