The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-19

| tue government did not hesitate TO
Say say that under this decision there was
/ ut through Federal action 1t has
iepuired twenty years or litigation 20
IN ;nakc the statute clear. But now it
shall not attempt to give it a
Iiose, iawyer-like Interpretation. but
declaration OF the court to say that
,na md any contract IN restraint of
c i,ade. mac ior the purpose OF ex-
| eiuuinS composition. controlling prices
Tor OF maintaining "A monopoly. In part
OF IN whole: Is contrary 10 the sta yute
dietmsntS u S;nSer 70 in'unetion and In
I ederal courts where II affects intor
state trade.
Query to Bryan.
Now. l would like to ask Mr. BRYAN
G ipris sny w SL the the other publlcists and
opinion as the surrender OF the rights
| ;uoiGiai power to tell the public what
| ia. .i contract or restraint of in
wb bI.h'e woi trade he would condemn
IN this definition OF the court. The
otiiculty with the literal construction
NJ oa,, rns statute is that II would de-
aeital restraints OF trade, which made
me statute ridiculous and weakened
c eis erect and lent support TO the criti-
| cisms and contemptuous treatment of
me statute by those who were on.
posed to It's passage and cnforcenenp,
| VI instance. take the instance cited
ne said that under the literal con.
I sIhctloh OF the statute which nius,
s oe enforced II there were two per
sons doing wagon-cXpress busi,ess
across State line and they united
IN a Partnership. the union in The
,a,.nership would be a restraint of In
| s.e'e trade In violation of the sta.
s sute, such = result Ia really re- :
n ,,'i'. ad absurdun. and no one who
/ etfectiw. itvor or making the statute
! .. Tor the purposes for which
1 " was passed. and had any inteiij.
S s appreciation OF what the statute
II as ns sn,ehded TO accomplish and what
construction. 1t is true thai in ops
u, the decisions OF the Supreme Court ,
tns Vas statement made that the
term reasonable could not bc tn
trodnced into tho statute because can-
S SerH s aao not put II there. but tho
, rHIy same court. and the very same
der,nos ny OF trade that must be con-.
Ii ri as unlawful II literal mean
sae, we're to be given to the statute.
be reaso so IN, NAM words that It must
| 49,, easohapiy construed. and thar 1. 1
must not be held to include eontrscts
| ~ - merely Incidental Restraints
/ purnosn ana were not made for that
~, M pose. In one of these cases !.
,ah oWhed some steamboats, thai did
! uivsr ers,ate business on the ohio
! dih FL, he wished to sell out He
az" s,.,,a mpoats he wished TO sell the yom,j
VIII OF the line which he had booi |
| that he woa iiGSfo Td, he stipulated
I mat business between those an
trhis ~, 10 q certain number of years.
1onsr VA" interstate business, and his
tract was in restraint az ,-.da
nGt the Supreme Court held ,bst &,
t mas mere incidental restraint
.ii, TO the sale OF the eo6,; |
tutc. "i'"ih the sta
| ~, sanctioned by Common Inv.
connor "Iuiu nave been the same at
! memorial such restraint n, ,h I'M
zen heid 10 be reasonable hcc.,,s !
tha eaod 10 ,, me necessity OF preserving |
selling ana an which the vender was |
aetnt would be worth nothinp II, |
,h sner words. the Supreme Court In
| tIon ~ saNe reasonable construc-
I'm I'm 10 the statute and eliminates
from It's operation those hartniass NJ
tui ihcidental Restraints growing on,
far @ contracts which arc made |
! ~ nch1lrely different purpose from
ta' OF controlling prices or maintain ]
ing monopoly by suppressing compe
r.a'on ana which have always been
hized as properly enforceable bv
courts of both law ana equity re
beat asain that in spite OF ali the
utbe e dsa. that We have heard OF |
tne standard Oil and the Tobacco
Uses mere is not one who has criti
re, mem that can formulate a con-
10 come within the statute that does
nor come within it under the decision
Oh the Supreme Court
/ II Is SAID that the Supreme Court /
mas read something into the statmte
snat was not there before; that n |
r tass ihEersd the word reasonable" be-
same court has Of o., trade; when the
not be properly done. because Cona
sress had evidently not intended 70
| sts,rie sI Th limiting word In the |
rms is not fair TO the court
r. Is true that the court. in the earlw
| gays or the construction OF the STA |,
t .hee, had said that il could not limit |
! It's operation what was deemed rea
sonaoie at common law. But as oth.
nr case arose it found it necessary to |
make exceptions 10 the literal opera
/ lion OF the words restraint Of rad"
and II did SO by excepting what was
minor, or incidental, or indirect, and
. nhint only those cases where the |
.nIei OBJECT Of the contract or com !
| bination was the restraint In dow
SO the court said that 1t must give the |
20, reasonable construction and
| Hot one leading to absurd or ridiculo Gus ,
| RESULTS; In the last two cases ths
court did not change the substance of
| ,ne reasoning and scope of the pre-
slous decisions, but only treated the
| exceptions previously termed Incl |
dental and indirect" as excluded fron, |
1 Inc operation pc Of the statute in the
the evii sought to be reached Now,
IN what way has this injured the pub |
nc nc veal! What combinations or ar
| ansenents can escape under this in |
terpreta ton that any sensible man
would wish to have condemned? Did
me court not condemn the Standard
| vi company. the father OF all trusts.
] IN the history of which every form NJ
criminal illegality was practiced? Did
- not. on the other hand condemn
me lopacco Trust, of much later orr |
4 & do .
cunning counsel for the very purposes
CT evading the condemnation OF the
statute and at the same time securing
| ers of the statute Intended To Ne
vent and punish?
Points Broad Distinctton. ,