The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-21
THE PRESIDENT AND THE counr


States supreme Court In the Standard
Oil case was announced last week
there was general feeling that it
was based upon sound legal prin-
ciples, and wa Il fair interprctn
ton OF the net of Congress anon
which the prosecution was based. II
We criticized the decision at all. We
should criticise II upon is inordinate
length and its lack OF clcarncss. not
In The conclusion that the Court
Reached. but in the Language in which
the opinion was cot:chcd. Ii was claimed
by Attorney General Wickcrsham. ar
ter the opinion had been announced.
that substantially every proposition
commended for by the Government had
been affirmed by the Court In inc
reasoning by which the Chief Justice
reached the conclusion, in which the
whole Court coneurred the Chief jus
tice expressed the view that only con
tracts, combinations etc., which in
any way unrensonably or unduly re-
strained interstate trade and commerce,
or which We're unreasonnbly rcstrictive
OF competitive conditions. arc within
!. the prohibition OF the first section OF
the Sherman Act. Justice HARLAN dis
scented from this view. contcnliug that
every contract, combination, Etc. which
does not restrain trade and commerce
IS within the inhibition 81 the statute
but he CONQUERED with the whole Court
IN The decree Of aifmance. In the
opinion Of the Chief Justice the second
section of the act seeks if possible
10 make the prohibitions OF lie act ali
the more complete ard perfect by en-
hracing al the attempts to reach the
ends Prohibited by the first section
thar is restraints OF trade by any At
tempt 70 monopolize even althousi,
thefacts by which such results are al
tempted be not embraced Within gthe
general enumeration of the nrst Sec
,ion
The objection to the decision Of The
Court Is that too many words arc uge,,
y EXPRESS the meaning of the Court
For example. take this:j
The merel. generic en,imeration
which the statute makes u the acts 10
which u refers ami the absence of any
uehnIticn Of any restraint 81 trade as
used in Tie statute leaves room for MIR
one. conclusion, Which Is, that st was
eN pressly designed not 10 unduly limit
the application OF the act BY precise
htlniuon hut while clearly fixing a
sianna1, that IS bY defining The ute
rior boundaries which could not be
ed Ittft !. u
10 be determincd by Tie ligAt Of rea
SON guided BY The principles az Ian
and the duty 10 apply and enforce the
phhiic policy embodied in the statuto.
~ every given case whether any par
ucular actIor contract was within In.
contemplation Of the statute
Take this
II 'he criterion hy whichi is to be
determined IN all cases Whether evcrv
contraci. combination. etc Is re-
stfaint Of trade within tho intendment.
Of ne law; is tho direct or .ndircni
effect Of 81 ,acEs Involved then. OF
course re file 81 reason becomes Tia
guide and Inc 'constrlic,ion which Ne
haXe slNen the statute. instead Of be-.
inE refuted ~ tile cases relied unn,,
is by those cases DEMONSTRATED Il ~.
correct This IS trnc. because az tho
construction which we have deduced
from the history OF the hct ana ;b.
ahh'ysis GIFTS tsxt is sirnplv tha;a.l,,
every case where / ie9clalined thAt Al,
al or acts are lin Violation " tIie
siaiutc HE ,ulc % reason III me .lI..I!,
or The priiiciplts Of law and lie nubliS
poilc% WHICH tie act einbodics. must
be applied From this i, fo,jop,e
since .ihet rule and tho rasnjt OF tlio
;est as to direct Or Indirect. IN ,i.alt.
ultimate nSOt-ci roi1p "a INV, .t,,, TIM