Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-12-05

President Stands as Champion
Of Statutes against Trusts
Not Repeal Dor Amendment,
But New Legislation
Needed
70 the Senate and House Of !.rpr..

70 the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives:
This message is the first of several
which shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount of Information to be commu-
nicated as to the operations Of the
government. the number of important
executive and the transmission to con-
gress of exhaustive reports OF speciak
commissions make it impossible to in
clude in one message Of a reasonable
length discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention.
Of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
The Antitrust Law-1hs Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions In the suits in equi-
ty brought by the United States to en-
join the further maintenance Of the
Standard OIL trust and Of the Amer1-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the busi-
ness world authoritatively Of the
scope and operation Of the antitrust.
act Of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part IN any substantial way from the
psetious decisions Of the court In con-
strutnk and applying this important
statute. but they clarify" those dect.
sions -hy further defining the~airesd!y
admitted exceptions to the literal con-
struction Of the net. By the decrees
they furnish a useful precedent as to
the proper method Of dealing with the
capital and property of illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom OF additional or supplemental
legislation to make 1t easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule Of action and legality
thus finally esta blished and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur OF
reasonable competition without loss OF
real efficiency or progress.
No Change In Tho Rule Of Decision.
q msrs'y In its Form Of Expression.
The statute in its first section de-
clares to be illegal ''every contract.
combination In the form Of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy In restraint
Of trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations
and In the second declares guilty Of a.
misdemeanor "every person who shalE
monopolize or attempt to monopolk<
or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopollze any part Of the
trade or commerce Of the several states
or with foreign nations.' -'~
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked to enjoin q transporta-
ton rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies. it was held :.
that it was no defense to show that
the agreement as to rates complained u.
Of was reasonable at common law, b.
cause It was said that the statute waA .
directed against all contracts and com-~
binations In restraint of trade, vhsther--
reasonable at common law or not ltE
was plain from the record, however,
that the contracts complained Of in
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 q reasonable
and refused to include
within its inhibition certain contrac-
Eual restraints Of trade which It de-
dominated as incidental or as Indirect
These cases Of RESTRAINT of trade that
he court excepted from the operation
Il the statute were instances which
It common law would have been CALI
ID reasonable. In the Standard on
md tobacco cases. therefore, the COURT
merely adopted the tests Of the CON-
non law and in defining exceptions to-
be literal application Of the statute.
My substituted for the test Of being
Incidental or indirect that OF beings
and this without varyinR'
q the slightest the actual scope and
ACSS VI tuc Sldtulc Ill OkuSI WUGVSS
II the cases under the statute which
ave now been decided would haves
eer decided the same way II the:
ourt had originally accepted In it,
obstruction the rule at common law
1t has been said that the court BY m3
into the construction of the.
tatute common law distinctions hael
it. This is obviously un-f
'ue. By its judgment every contract
nd combination in restraint Of inter.
tate trade made with the purpose ort
effect of controlling pricesk
: sitting competition or Of establish
e in whole or in part 4 monopoly Of !
lch trade IL condemned By the stat.
te. The most extreme CRITICS cannot
lstance y c"s" th.. .N'"ht ~ ho >'"n :.
{ Continued on Page Three.)