The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-12-09
MESSAGE OF
THE PRESIDENT
u. Tait Champ|o,ls the Anti
trust Statute
EM REMEDIES SUGGESTED,

Net nspsal Or Amendment, but Sup
elemental Legislation Nssdsd-Ths
Ttbseoe Trust psolslsn an Effective
o"s-FsdsrsI incorporation Recon-.
neAndsd 'snd Federal Cooperation
csmwissieo Prepessd-Ths Test Of
~Nssssnablsosss-"
40 the senate and House of Repre-
ssntatives:
This message In the first Of several
which I shall send 20 congress- during
The interval between the opening OF
tn regular session and its adjourn
Dent for the Christmas holidays. The
amount Of Information to be commu.
ntc1ted as TO the operations OF the
government. the number of important
eubjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con.
gruss OF exhaustive reports of special
: eommissions make IL impossible to in-
~e5ude Ia one message Of q reasonable
length . discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
Of the national legislature at its Grst
regular session.
Tn Antitrust tsw-Ths Supreme
Court pseislens.
= In May last the supreme court hand.
% down decisions In the suits I'm equi-
y brought by the United States to Ell
join the further maintenance Of the
standard OIL trust and Of the Ameri.
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
oissoiution- The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the busi-
pess world authoritatively Of the
cope and operation OF the antitrust
act OF 1890. The decisions do not de-
pert In any substantial way from the
previous decisions Of the court I'm con-
STRUNG and applying this important
statute. but they clarity those deci.
mons By further defining the already
pdmitted exceptions to the literal con
Wrpction Of the act. BY the DEGREES
met furnish a useful precedent as to
the proper method Of dealing with the
capital and property Of Illegal trusts.
Ihefe decisions suggest the need md
wisdom Of additional or supplemental
ey1slnticu 10 make II easier for the
ptire business community TO square
Nth the rule OF action and legality
thus inally established and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur Of
reasonable competition without loss OF
renl efficiency or progress.
Ne Change In che Rule Of peeislon.
merely In lie Form Of Expression.
The statute In its FIRST section de-
O|ares 10 be Illegal every contract.
combination I'm the form OF trust or
Otherwise or conspiracy I'm restrain
or trntle or commerce among the ser
erni states or with foreign nations"
and In the second declares guilty Of a
misdemeanor every person who shall
16ponopolize or attempt to monopolizs
or combine or conspire with any other
person TO monopolize any part of che
trade or commerce OF the several states
Or with foreign nations"
In tuo early cases. where the statute
was Invoked to enjoin n transporta.
don rite agreement between inter
Dafe railroad companies. Il was held
<hat n was no defense TO show that
the agreement as TO rates complained
or was reasonable at common law. be.
cause u was said that the statute was
directed against ell contra It's and COM
binations In restraint of trade, whether
reasonable nj common law or not. II
vas plain from the record. however.
hat the contracrs complained of I'm
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
sequent cases the court said that the
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within Its inhibition certnin contrac-
/Pal restraints Of trade which it de-
nominated as incidental or "a indirect.
These cases OF RESTRAINT OF trade that
the court excepted from the operation
Of the statute were instances which
at common law would have been call.
Cd reasonable. In the Standard OIL
and tobacco cases. therefore. the court
merely 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
s*N t'Naa"t W thdhttt tubt OI Delng
reasonable. and this without varying
In the slightest the actual scope and
GDRect OF the statute In other words.
I'LL the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted IN lts
construction the rule nj common law.
II has been said that the court by In.
Producing into the construction OF the
statute common law distinctions has
&fnasculated II. This Is obviously un-
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 a monopoly OF