The citizen., 1911-06-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.


Mr. Bryan takes the point of view that
the Court had no right to reverse itself,
and hints that the bench of judges had
been packed. He says:
1T is fundamental rule of reason
that man can generally find a reason
not always conclusive and sometimes not
even plausible. but reason sufficient for
himself-for doing anything upon which
his heart is really set. If bias is admitted
bias in the President as well as in the
judge-it is entirely possible that Presi-
dent might unconsciously select Judges
who would, without any previous pledge,
agree quite naturally with those who rep
resent their side of the great fundamental
issues that divide society. If it Just hap
happened that in the selection of eight
judges all should take the view of Justice
White. and if it is not accounted for by
bias on great subjects, then it shows what
lottery is conducted at the White
House when the President blindfolds
himself and picks judges at random, only
to find that all the prizes have gone to
those who do not fear reasonable Trusts
and none TO those who oppose all restraint
of trade.
at is possible that Congress may see
fit TO express its disapproval of the con-
struction placed upon the Anti Trust law
by the Court in the Standard Oil and
Tobacco cases. 1t may see fit to pass
some of the bills already introduced by
specifically declaring that the law pro-
hibits all restraint of trade-not merely
unreasonable restraint.
''lf the Supreme Court is to become a
legislative body, what reason can be
given for not making it elective also? The
people would submit much more will
lingly TO judicial legislation if they had a
chance to elect the judges for fixed terms.
Will they consent to legislation on i'm
portant questions by Court whose men,
bers are not only appointed by the Presi
dent, but appointed for life?
SIN the light of this decision, who is
likely to be convicted of criminal viola
ton of the Anti Trust law? We may as
well recognize that we now have no
criminal law against the Trusts. What
ever is left OF the Antitrust law-the
only protection against monopolies for 81
years-must be enforced as civil statute,
and of what value is that when it requires
four and a half years to reach a decision
which, when reached, is of but little value
when applied to another case? According
to the decision OF the Court, each case
must now be decided upon the facts
which it presents, the reasonableness of
the restraint being mere matter of
opinion"
Judge Peter s. Grosscup points out the
ineffectiveness of the old law, and says:
The practical result of the Sherman
act as previously Interpreted was that not
only the carriers of the country and the
| all Of fhsa hut
nearly every business of every character
was put literally under the condemna-
ton of the law Nearly every business
national sin. And there was no escape
from the wrath to come, except to make
ones peace with the Executive authori-
ties at Washington. From the viewpoint
| of large number Of those to whom this
inquiry is matter of deep concern, per
haps large majority yet, the Sherman
act as it now stands interpreted, will
| look like gun from which the load has
been extracted. AS weapon it will look
dsmanted. As mere weapon. it is dis
manted. If in the interests of the ord-
nary man these modern economic meth
DDS and tendencies must be overhauled
and destroyed-if union of effort and
capital solely because it is effort and cap
ital in union must be circumvented-thIs
latest decision has drawn the load of the
only gun thus far trained against the
enemy. But it was gun that. whatever
the terror of the explosion, never fired
anything other than blank cartridges.
The paramount benefit of this latest
decision, to my mind, is that it will bring
the public mind TO discern that we are in
a new age, IN which combinations and
monopoles even are economic neces-
sites; and that being here, as the neces-
sary economic equipment of the times,
| the thing to do with them is not to train
! guns on them as if they ought not to be
here at all, but to so safeguard them as
/ forms OF investment and Sc limit them in
dividends allowed to be paid (their rights
are State given only, not the rights of
natural persons that they will have no
motive to deal otherwise than fairly with
the people, and will become also, as
property investments, representative of
the people.
ut is just here-the clearing of the
ground for intelligent progress in behalf
of the masses-that this decision is an
event-a turning event in the life of the
nation"
James NJ. Book frankly admits the law
could not be enforced. He says: The
Sherman law was impossible of enforce
ment. TO avoid committing a great,
practical industrial nation to a policy of
harl- kari, successive Attorneys General
necessarily ignored its impartial enforce
ment, and as a sop to a supposed public
sentiment brought suit only against few
OF the larger and more unpopular comb.
nations. This enforced policy of execu-
tive favoritsm could not long endure.
Its demoralizing results were patent. 1t
bred a spirit of lawlessness, DESTROYED
faith in the basic principle of our Govern
ment, the equal protection of the laws,
and compelled proud men to stoop to the
purchase of immunity by hattery and
other forms of sycophancy.
TO this end, the Trust decisions will
undoubtedly contribute in their clear
recognition that the law is impotent to
forbid all combinations which incidentally
restrict competition, but the problem is,
IN its last analysis legislative in character,
and what is imperatlvely needed is
saner public sentiment. which will COM
pei Congress to conform the laws of busi
ness 10 the irresistible and centripetal
tendencies of steam and electricity"
Samuel Untermyer, after asserting that
the Government by giving tacit assent to
violations of the Sherman law has con-
doned all offenses, says:
From the very beginning the execu-
tion OF the law was lntrusted to unfrendy
hands, and SO it has continued to this
day That is the key to all our present