Yellowstone monitor. [volume] (Glendive, Mont.) 1905-1928, 1911-12-07

| been decided the same way IT rne
court had originally accepted In its
! construction the rule at common law
It has been said that the court by in
Producing into the construction of the
statute common law distinctions has
emasculated it, This is obviously IN
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 a case that ought to be con-
demned under the statute which Is not
gtrued
The suggestion is also made that the
supreme court BY It's decision fn the
last two cases has committed TO the
court the unde6ned and unlimited dis
creeton 60 determine whether case OF
restraint Of trade is within the terms
OF the statute. This is wholly untrue.
4 reasonable restraint of trade at COM
mon law Is well understood and Is
clearly defined. It does not rest In the
discretion Of the court. It must be
limited to accomplish the purpose OF a
lawful main contract to which In order
that it shall be enforceable at all it
must be incidental. II il exceed the
needs OF that contract 1t Is void.
The test OF reasonableness was never
applied by the court at comman law
to contracts or combinations or con
spirac1es In restraint Of trade whose
purpose was or whose necessary effect
would be to stif1e competition. TO con
troll prices or establish monopolies
The courts never assumed power to
say that such contracts or combina-
tions or eonspiracies might be lawful
Il the parties to them We're 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 It
is true that many theorists and others.
engaged In business violating the stat
ute have hoped that some such line
could be drawn by courts, but no court
OF authority has ever attempted 1t
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,
F'srce and Effectiveness OF Statute .
Matter of Growth.
We have been twenty -one years max
ing this statute effective for the pur-
poses for which 1t was enacted. The
knight case was tiscouragtng and
seemed to remit TO the states the=whole
available power TO attack and suppress
the evils OF the trusts. Slowly, howev-
er, the error Of that judgment was cor
rected, and only in the last three or
four years has the heavy hand OF the
law been laid upon the great illegal
combinations that have exercised such
an absolute dominion over many OF our
industries. Criminal prosecutions have
been brought, and q number are pend
ing, but juries have felt ayerse TO con-
/ victing for jail sentences and judges
have been most reluctant to impose
such sentences on men Of respectable
standing In society whose offense has
been regarded as merely statutory.
! Still, as the offense becomes better un-
/ derstood and the committing OF Il par
takes more Of studied and deliberate
defiance OF the law we can be conf
dent that juries will convict 1ndiyidu-
ais and that jail sentences will be im-
posed.
The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard Oil case the supreme
and circuit courts found the eombina-
ton TO be monopoly OF the interstate
business OF refining, transporting and
marketing petroleum and Its producfs.
effected and maintained through thlr-
ty-seven different corporate fne
stock of which was held by q New Jer-
sey company. 1t in effect commanded
the dissolution OF this combination, dl-
rected the transfer and pro rata distr1-
button by the New Jersey company Of
the stock held by it in the thfrty-seyen
corporations TO and among It's stock
holders, and the corporations and indi-
yidual defendants were enjofned from
! conspiring or combining 20 restore
such monopoly, and alI agreements be-
i tween the subsidiary corporations tend
ing to produce or bring about further
/ violations Of the act were enjc1ned-
La the tobacco case the court found
that the individual defendants. TWEEN
ty-nine In number, had been engaged
In a successful effort TO acquire COM
piete dominion over the manufacture.
sale and distribution OF tobacco In this
country and abroad and that this had
been done. by combinations made with
purpose and effect to stifie compet1-
ton, control prices and establish 2
monopoly, not only In the manufacture
OF tobacco, bat also OF TN foil End l1c-
orica used In its manufacture and OF
it's products OF cigars, cigarettes ana
gnufrs. The tobacco suit presented .
/ far more complicated and difacult case
fhan fha Standard Oil suit Tor decree