Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-06-08
DECISIONS
SEEN DIFFERENTLY
Change Of Unreasonable" to
Reasonable" Said to Have
Been Made by Justice.


cases did not read any words into the
Sherman law or in any manner go modify
that statute as to encourage industrial
and other combinations TO restrain inter-
state trade, created a profound interest
in financial and legal circles.
In the view of Mr.. Walker, one Of the
eminent jurisconsults In America and
author of the History Of the Sherman
Law" standard work. the Supreme
Court in the two decisions has ushered
in a real trust busting era instead of
an era of business and Industrial recon-
struction so framed as to permit of
reasonable" restraint Of trade.
The most remarkable feature of Mr..
Walkers statement is that his discovery
led directly to the correction of a part
of the most vitality important phraseology
employed by Chief Justice White In de-
livering the majority opinion of the SUI
preme Court.
In the original typewritt>c opinion
handed down by the Chief Justice in the
tobacco decision, the word unreasonable"
was so used as seemingly to modify the
scope and intent of the Sherman law.
In this form the decision was heralded to
the world 1t favorably affected the
As popularity interpreted. 1t gave license
to trusts and other combinations to re-
strain trade reasonable" without set
ting the bounds to the reasonableness
believed to have been authorized.
WHAT THE LETTER SHOWS.
| AS shown by the letter received few
| days ago by Mr.. Walker from the clerk
| of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice
| White ordered the substitution of the
word reasonable" for the word "un-
! reasonable in his written opinion.
Thus, Mr.. Walker holds, the court
has made the Sherman law even moro
drastic by virtually reading the word
reasonable into the statute than It
was before the court passed upon It
In the Standard Oil and tobacco trust
cases. In other words. If the court
has In effect amended the law It has
made 1t read that not even reason
| able" restraint may be practised by
trusts and combinations, instead of max
ing it read that ''unreasonabe' restrain,
may not be practlsed.
II heard both decisions delivered, '
said Mr.. Walker yesterday to an Ameri-
can reporter land realized the full
import of both. I was astonshed tc
read In all the newspapers a day OF
two following that Wall Street well
coined them as pointing the way foi
trusts to pursue their old ways almos
wholly unchecked. that the Supreme
| Court had declared in effect that 81
long as restraint was not unreasonable,
It might be practiced.
Before making any move waite,
for the printed copies of the opinions
Then I wrote a letter to the clerk o
the Supreme Court requesting him t,
call the attention of Chief Justice Whit,
to the obvious lapse Of his tongue or pei
: in using the word unreasonable wher
plainly he meant reasonable
MANY FOOLS IN WALL STREET.
II am not surprised that this verba
mistake fooled Wall Street, because Wal
street is made up largely OF fools; but
am surprised that so large a part of tn
legal profession seemingly has fallen int
the same error
THE obiter dicta, or by-way remarks
Of the chief justice, appear to have bee
widely mistaken for a correct interpreta
ton of the law by the majority of tn
court. Obiter dlcta do not make Law
Lawyers understand what l mean by thi:
II is difficult tersely to explain it to tn
: lay mind.
Chief Justice White INDUCED in grea
deal of comment upon both cases in rer
dering the majority decision which limo
Gently misled the public. In my jude
ment one good effect of his obiter dict
vas that they possibly prevented pani
Even Justice Harlan, than whol
there is no greater jur-st at present. al
Years TO have been affected by this mi!
= understanding. His dissenting opinion
. the Standard Oil case, a powerful array
Il ing of the law and the presidents and
+ dignifled arraignment of his associate
o was calculated to strengthen the publ
: misrepresentation.
His dissent in the tobacco trust ca:
Il partially, at least, should have set II
Il rublic right, for in that dissent he dive
with force and logic on the utter fulfill
Of the claim that the supreme Court cou
Fmend or modify statute
EMPHASIZES DRASTIC LAW.
by substituting the word 'reaso
able for the word unreasonable Chi
Justice White has completely upset II
popular Interpretation of his decisio
lie has only emphasized the drastic n
=, ture of the Sherman law instead
llberalizng 1t. In the name of Il
Supreme Court he has served notice
every Illegal trust and other comhn
ton that hereafter they must literal
- obey the law; they must not to al
~ extent restrain or monopolize int
- state trade. As the statute is a erin
Il nal one he has declared every violat
u Of the Sherman law a criminal.
IS What is left of each of these trus
" Will be permitted to continue in busine:
l. Of course. The only change will be tn
's neither can hope ever again to make su
1t enormous profits. This means that t
|; stocks of both of them will sink to t
normal basis of value. What has he
done to these combinations will he do
to every other one in the country III
al Is In violation of the Sherman law. T
81, only escape from it Is to secure an amen
or ment OF the sherman law along the lir
- which wall Street at first thought h
-. been followed by the Supreme Court.
~ II apprehend no harm to the count
g. from the trust busting era the Supre,
'' Court has ushered in. On the contra
n' feel confident that as soon as
@ reimbursement made necessary by
te decisions has been effected n new n
at bigger era of prosperity for the VIII
nd country will enSue, In the meantime
h look for n lively agitation for an anne,
'st ,nent Of the Sherman law by men n
Is interests that have prospered inordinat
le- under the present system of trusts"
ala o,y NNMNTHlrNr,nrr~