Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-05-17

Every contract, combination ii
form of trust or otherwise, or con
spiracy in restraint of trade or com
merce among the states, is hereby de
clared Illegal"
Therefore. Congress said to all thu
people of this country:
we are not going to bother thu
courts or ourselves with any inquire!
as to what contracts are in restrain
of trade reasona bly, or unreasonably
We are not going to leave that to any
jury. We are not going to leave tina
to any circuit judge. We will de-
termine it as part of the policy OF
the United States, that. so far as in
terstate trade is concerned. no body oil
corporation shall make or attempt t
enforce a contract, any contract, thai
in any degree restraints interstate
trade"
Can anybody doubt the meaning OF
those words? If YOU say two and two
make four YOU would not make it any
palmer than these words make out the
intention of Congress.
What occurred next? Look at this
step by step. and ! shall get. directly
to the part of this opinion that say
may we'll alarm the country, notwith-
standing the many good things that
are in it, magniiciently said.
In 1895, Is years ago, a case was in
this court know as the trans Missouri
case. The railways in that case had
come to make an agreement about
rates and the question was whether
or not whether that agreement was in
violation of the antitrust law of 1890.
That question involved the construc-
ton as to the scope and meaning of
that antitrust law. Who was here to
instruct the court on that occasion?
We hear good deal about the lamp
OF reason" We hear that the time
mas come when we should show up the
light of reason and look at this act:
as If the men of that day, freshly aft
er the passage of the act were moving
about in darkness and did not know
what they were doing or saying.
Let US see who were the men in that
case that were moving about in dark
ness, and did not have the light of
reason by which to interpret the act
In the first place, there was here in
that ease-I well remember it; and |
said at the time | had never heard, in
all my professional life. a more mag
nificant argument than was made in
that case-who was here in that case
to enlighten the court? First, the at
torney general of the United States;
William F. Guthrie of New York: John
f. Dillon of New York: James C. Car
ter, the leader of the American bar of
that day; Edward J. Phelps of Yer
mont; Lloyd w. Bowers, as represent
ing some of the railroads-one of the
greatest lawyers this country ever has
mad; and John G. Johnson of PhiIa-
delphia. was on one of the briefs.
THOSE We're the men who were before
the court at that time and what was
their contention? That that act of Con-
gress did not embrace reasonable re-
straint of trade, but only unreasona BILE
restraint of trade. That was the uues-
ton that they pressed upon this court
What did this court say? Pardon me
for reading little to show exactly what
was in their minds. 1t is said. in an
opinion delivered by great jurist. Mr..
Justice Peckham:
While the statute prohibits all combi-
nations in the form of trusts or other
wise, the limitations are not confined to
that form alone. All combinations which
are In restraint of trade or commerce
are prohibited. whether in the form of
trusts or in any otner form.
And then they came directly to the
question pressed by these eminent law
yers upon the attention of the court, and
the court said in the opinion:
The next question to be discussed is
as to what is the true construction of
the statute assuming that it applies to
carriers by railroad What is
the meaning?" The court asks, .Of the
language used in the statute that every
contract, combination in the form of
trusts or otherwise, or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
states, or with foreign nations is hereby
declared to be illegal"
What is the meaning of that? asks the
court. Is it confined to a contract or
combination which only an unreasonable
restraint of trade or commerce, or does
it include what the language of the act
plainly and in terms eovers:-tAll con-
tracts of that nature"-all contracts tnat
restrain trade at all among the states
are prohibited by this statute.
1t is now, with much amplification of
argument, urged that this statute in de-
claring illegal every combination in the
form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy
in restrain of trade or commerce. does
not mean what the language used therein
plainly purports, but that it means only
to declare Illegal any such contract
which is in unreasonable restraint of
trade. while leaving all others una feet
ed by the provisions of the act: that the
common law-we hear a good deal about
that in this opnion-that the common
law meaning of the term contract in re-
straint of trade includes only such con-
tracts as are in unreasonable restraint of
trade. and where that term is used in the
federal statute it is not intended to in
elude all contracts in restraint, but only
those which are in unreasonable restraint
thereof"
That was the argument of these emf
nent lawyers. The court says:
BY the simple use of the term con-
tract in restraint of trade all contracts
of that nature. whether invalid or other
wise, would be included and not alone
that kind OF contract which was Invalid
and uninforcibie as being unreasonable
restrain of trade. When, therefore, the