Evening star., 1911-05-30
MAJORITY OPINION WRITTEN
BY CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE
Case Is Remanded to Lower Tribunal,
Which Is Instructed to Devise
Methods of Dissolution.

/ combination could possibly have been de-
| creed"
| Chief Justice Whites opinion proceeded
under three general heads: First, a de-
| tailed statement of the history Of the
| case; second, the meaning of the Sherman
act and Its application to this case. and
third, the remedies to be applied.
| Questions not hitherto considered by the
court were included In the case at bar
In this connection. the Chief Justice said
Thus. even II the ownership of stock
by the American Tobacco Company in
| the accessory and subsidiary companies
| and the ownership Of stock In any OF
| those companies among themselves were
held. as was decided in the Standard Oil
and all relations resulting from such
| stock ownership were therefore set aside
| the question would yet remain whether
the principal defendant. the American
defendants. even when divested Of their
| stock ownership in other corporations. by
! virtue Of the power which they would
| continue to possess. even although thus
| stripped. would amount to a violation
| Of both the first and second sections OF
| the act.
I Again, IL 1t were held that the cor
lporationA the existence whereof was due
Ito a combination between such companies
and other companies was violation OF
Ter such Of the companies as did not owe
their existence and power to combina-
t1ons. but whose power alone arose from
the exercise Of the right to acquire and
prohibitions of the act. Yet. further.
even II this proposition was held in the
Affirmative. the question would remain
whether the principal defendant. the
ped of its stock ownership, would be In
and of itself within the prohibitions OF
the act. although that company was or
ganized and took being before the anti
trust act was passed.
] On Account Of Association.
Still further. the question would yet
remain whether particular. corporations
which. when bereft Of the power which
they possessed as resulting from stock
Ownership. although they were not in
herently possessed Of q suhacient resid-
uum of power to cause them to be in
and of themselves either a restraint of
trade or a monopolization or an attempt
to monopolize, should nevertheless be re-
strained because of their intimate con-
nection and association with other cor
operations found to be within the prohi-
bitions of the act
In taking up the construction and ap-
plication Of the Sherman antitrust law,
Chief Justice White said that IL the law
was applicable to the entire situation
presented in the tobacco case and was
adequate to afford relief lit can only
be because that law will be given q
more comprehensive application than has
been Affixed"
| The necessity Of relief for SO many
aspects. the Chief Justice said. had evil
dently led the government to resort to
methods OF construction which were in
compatible. and at the same time the de-
fendants had not been able to do much
which arose. according to the Chief Jus
tice. grew out OF plain misconception
of both the letter and spirit Of the anti
trust act. He added that the obscurity
and resulting uncertainty which had en-
! shrouded the Sherman antitrust act
had been removed by the considera-
tion the court had given the law
cided. The Chief Justice then launched
son" as laid down by the court in the
Standard Oil case. He said:
| I'm that case 1t was held. without de-
parting from any previous decision OF
the court. that as the statute had not
defined the words restraint OF trade, 1t
became necessary to construe those
words. q duty which could only be dis
charged by resort to reason. We say
! the doctrine thus stated was in accord
with all the previous decisions Of this
court. despite the fact that the con-
trary view was sometimes erroneously
attributed to some OF the expressions
used in two prior decisions (the Trans
Missouri Freight Association and Joint
=
| q mistaken one was fully pointed out
| in the Standard Oil case and IL addi-
tionally shown by passage in the
opinion in the joint traffic case as fol-
lows:
Reasonable Construction Needed.
1.-The act of Congress must have a
would scarcely be an agreement or
L.
could not be said to have. indirectly or
remotely. some bearing on interstate
commerce. and possibly to restrain it.
! Applying the rule OF reason to the
, construction Of the statute. 1t was held
in the Standard Oil case that as the
words restraint OF trade at common Law
and In the law Of this country at the
time Of the adoption OF the antitrust
act only embraced acts or contracts
| or agreements or combinations which
operated to the prejudice Of the public
interests by unduly restricting compe-
ution or unduly obstructing the true
course OF trade or which. either be-
cause OF their inherent nature or ef-
feet. or because of the evident purpose
OF the acts. ETC.. injuriously restrained
trade. that the words as used in the
statute were designed to have and did
have but like Significance.
| 1t was, therefore. pointed out that the
statute did not forbid or restrain the
power to make normal and usual con-
tracts to further trade by resorting to all
normal methods whether by agreement
or otherwise, to accomplish such pur-
pose. In other words. 1t was held. not
that acts which the statute prohibited
could be removed from the control Of Its
prohibitions by q finding that they were
unreasonable. but that the duty to inter-
pret which inevitably arose from the gen.
eral character OF the term restraint OF
trade required that the words restraint OF
trade should be given q meaning which
would not destroy the individual right to
contract and render difficult, II not i'm
possible. any movement of trade in the
channels Of interstate commerce-the free
movement Of which 1t was the purpose
OF the statute to protect.
The soundness Of the rule that tn,
statute should receive q reasonable con.
struction. after further mature delbera
uon. we see no reason to doubt. Indeed
the necessity for not departing in thi,
case from the standard OF the rule OF
reason which IL universal In its applica
uon II 30 plainly required in order to give
effect to the remedial purposes which IN.
act under consideration contemplates. and
! 20 prevent that act from destroying al
liberty Of contract and al substantia
right to trade. and thus causng the &C
to De At war With itself by annihilotiul
the fundamental right Of freedom to trad
which. on the very face OF the oct. IL wa.
enacted to preserve. 10 Illustrated by In,
record before us. In truth, the piai1
demonstration which this record gives o
the inquiry which would arise from ant
the promotion Of the ewyenss which n!