New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-19
The Presidents Speech.
President Taft's speech follows:

PEOPLE for now twenty years, that or indus
trial combinations known as trusts
During the last wear we have had two
great decisions by the Supreme Court or
tho United States. They are epoch making.
The effect that those decisions are certain
10 have. IL is not that the construction
which the court has put upon the act is
different from that which most members
Of the profession, and most subordinate
courts, and indeed the Supreme Court Itself.
lad before indicated as the proper con-
struction o. the statute; but 1t Is that II Is
now finally settled, by two FUZZY Consld-
,red decisions in respect to two Of the
largest and most powerful of these com
hinstioOs. what their illegality consists in,
and how they are 10 be treated. In view
OF the finding that they are Illegal and do
violate the provisions Of the sO-called anti
trust or Sherman act
Persons who do not understand the eitect
of these decisions and really do not under
stand the law have a great deal 10 say
Which is intended 10 lead the public 10 the
belief that In some way or other the su-
preme Court has emasculated the statute
and prevented its operation against obJec-
fionable and injurious trade combinations
and conspirsc ies. Nothing is further from
the truth. 80
When the statute was passed. In 1899, the
expressions used in II TO define its object
nd what II was proposed therein 10 ue-
uornce as unlawful were not new, but they
were suficiently broad and indefinite 10 re
quire judicial construction 10 settle their
meaning Congress was dealing with a
subject matter IN respect 70 which II may
he assumed that the legislators themselves
were not clear as to the exact limitations
OF the meaning OF the words IN the statue
they we're passing. They new there was
an evil. which thew hope TO restrain by
the enactment OF this law and they relied
upon the courts IN the construction OF
the law to hedge aboot IS operation such
restriction as WOulc event the statute
from being SO wide I'm its application as "a
involve absurdity and the impracticable,
The early decisions under the law cannot
re said 10 have been fortunate. The de-
cignn I'm what was known eS the sugar
Trust case-the Knight case-was really Q
retrograde step, and one which seemed &C
Nrnit much the operation OF the statute
II encouraged the organization OF com.
l!ratiors which the same court has since
found violate the statute. The case Coulc
rot be effectively presented to the couLI
because the record had not been properly
made NJ. and the questions arising Were
treated in the opinion in such way 2s u
give the impression that the operation o.
The law would be most restricted q aus
- the limits Of federal Jurisdiction Indeed
some law officers OF the government dio
lot hesitate 20 say that under ms declsloI
there was little hope OF reaching the eNl
aimed al through federal action. IL has re-
7uirad twenty wears Of litigation 20 make
ne statute clear. But now il is clear.
Rioor Of Reasonable Law.
shall not attempt 10 give it close,
IaWver-like Interpretation, but / think +;
IS not departing from the declaration o,
the court % say that they hnd any con-
tract in restraint Of trade, made for the
purpose Of excluding competition, controll-
ing prices or Of maintaining a monopoly,
IN part or in whole, is contrary 10 the
statute and IS subject 10 Injunction and
Indictment under this statute in the fed
eral courts where 1t affects interstate
4 ade.
Vow. I would like 10 ask Mr.. Bryan or
any Of the other publicists and Jurists
who have been denouncing this opinion
as the surrender of the rights Of the
peonle and a usurpaton Of judicial power
70 tell the public what particular contract
or restraint OF interstate trade he would