The Forrest City times., 1911-12-08


 untrue By its judgment every con tract and combination in restraint of interstate trade made with the purpose or necessary effect Of controlling prices by stifing competition, or of establish ing in whole or in part a monopoly of such trade. is condemned by the stat ute. The most extreme critics cannot instance a case that ought 70 be con demned under tae statute which is not brought within it's terms as thus con gtrued.
 The suggestion Is also made that the Supreme court by its decision in the last two cases has committed 10 the court the undehned and unlimited dis cretion 10 determine whether a case Of restraint of trade is within the terms of the statute. This Is wholly untrue A reasonable restraint of trade at common law Is we'll under stood and Is clearly defined It does not rest in the discretion of the court. It must be limited to accomplish the purpose of lawful main contract 10 which. in order that 1t shall be en- forceable at all. 1t must be incidental II t exceeds the needs of that contract i is void
 The test of reasonableness was never applied by the court at com mon-iaw 10 contracts CT combinations or coaspiraeies in restraint os trade whose purpose Ras or whose neces- sary effect would be to stlfe competi- tion, to control prices. or establish monerolies. The courts never as sumed power to say that such con- tracts or combinations or eonspira- cies might be lawful if the parties 10 them were only moderate Tn the use CT the power thus secured and did not exact from the public too great and exorbitant prices. IL Is true that many theorists. and others en- gagged in business violating the statue. have hoped that some such line could be drawn by courts: but no court of authority has ever at tempted it. Certainly there is noth- Ing in the decisions of the latest two cases which should be a dangerous theory of judicial discretion in en- forcing this statue can derive the slightest sanction.
 Force and Effectiveness of Statute a
 Matter of Growth.
 We have been twenty-one years making this statue effective for the purposes for which 1t was enacted. The Knight case was diseouraging and seemed to remit to the states the whole available power to attack and suppress the evils of the trusts. Slowly, however. the errors of that Judgment was corrected. 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 do- minion over many of our industries Criminal prosecutions have been brought and a number are pending. but juries have felt averse to convict ing for jail sentences. and judges have been most reluctant to impose such sen tences on men of respectable standing in society whose offense has been regarded as merely statutory. Still as the Offense becomes better under stood and the committing of l. par takes more of studied and deliberate defiance of the law. we can be conf dent that turies will convict individ- uals and that jail sentences will be imposed.
 The Remedy in Equity by Dissolution.
 In the Standard Oil caseSthe Su. preme and circuit courts found the combination to be a monopoly of the interstate business of refining. trans porting and marketing petroleum and is products. effected and maintained through thirty-seven different cor rorations, the stock of which was held by New Jersey company. II in effect commanded the dissolution of this combination. directed tho transfer and pro-rata distribution by the New Jersey company of the stock held by t in the thirty seven corporations to and among it's stock. holders and the corporations and In dividual defendants were enioined rom conspiring or combining Ia re. store such monopoly: and all agree ments between the subsidiary corner ations tending 10 produce or bring about further violations of the act were enioined
 In the Tobacco case. the court found that tte individual defendants twenty in number. had been on. gagged in successful effort 10 ac. qnlre complete dominion over the manufacture. sale, and distribution of tobacco in this country and abroad and that this had heen done by com. hlnations made with purpose and effect 10 stifie competition. control prices and establish q monopoly not only h the manufacture of tobacco. but also of tin-foil and Hcorice used Tn its manufacture and of its products of cigars, cigarettes. and snuffs The tobacco suit presented far more complicated and difficult case than tte Standard oil suit for a decree which would effeetuate the will of inc eeart and end the violation of the statute There was here no single