Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-12-06
MESSAGE OF
The PRESIDENT
Nj, Taft Champions the Anti.
trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

Tobacco Trust Decision an Effective
ons-FederaI incorporation Recon-
msndsd and a Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test OF
"Reasonableness."
To the Senate and House of Repre-.
sentatives:
This message is the first of several
which l shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening of
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount OF information to be commu.
nicated as to the operations Of the
government, the number Of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con.
gress Of exhaustive reports of special
commissions make 1t impossible to in
elude in one message Of a reasonable
length discussion of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
The Antitrust Law-Ths Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions in the suits in eoui-
ty brought by the United States to en-.
join the further maintenance of the
Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
mNGing and serve to advise the busi-
ness world authorltatively of the
scrpe and operation OF the antitrust
act of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part I'm any substantial way from the
previous decisions Of the court in con-
STRUNG and applying this important
statute. but they clarity those deci-
sinnS 10y further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con-
strhctinn OF the act. BY the decrees
they furnish n useful precedent as to
the 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 II easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule Of action and Legality
thus finally established and TO pre-
serve the benefit, freedom and spur of
reasonable competition without loss of
real eff iency or progress
No Change In the Rule of Decision,
Merely In Its 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 ur with foreign nations"
and In the second declares guilty of
Ill demcanor every person who shal,
monoNN!i2e or attempt to monopollze
or combine or conspire with any other
pe'~on to monopolize any part of the
trade or commerce of the several states
or With foreign nations"
In two enrly cases, where the statute
was Invoked to enjoin transporta.
tion rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, 1t was held
that II was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained
OF was reasonable at common law, be-
cause 1t was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and com.
hlnations in restraint of trade, whether
reasonable at common law or not. n
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.
seqn"nt cases the court said that the
statute should he given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within Its inhibition certain contrac.
tual restraints OF trade which Il de.
nominated as incidental or as indirect.
These cases Of RESTRAINT OF trade that
the court excepted from the operation
or the statute We're instances which |
nj common law would have been call. |
ell reasonable, In the Standard on
ana tobacco cases, therefore the court
E'erely 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.
hll the cases under the statute which |
have now been decided would have
EeeA decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted In its
construction the rule at common law.
II has been said that the court by in.
Producing into the construction of the
I,atr,> common law distinctions has
emasculated It. This is obviously un.
true BY its Judgment every contract
rnd combination in restraint of inter.
Ote trnGe made with the purpose or
necessary effect of controlling prices
bv 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
s'~ued
The suggestion is also made that the
suNreme court hv It's decision in the
last two eases has committed to the
court the underlined and unlimited dis
erection to determine whether case OF
Restrain ~ trade Is within the terms