Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-12-05
DEFENDS SHERMAN
LAW SUPPLEMENT- IN


u I1cAditCtS winch
at common law would have been cali
ell reasonable. In the Standard on
and tobacco cases. therefore, the court
merely adopted the tests of the com
mon law and In defining exceptions to
the literal application of the statute
only substituted for the test of being
Incidental or Indirect that of being
reasonable. and this without varying
III the slightest the actual scope ana
effect of the statute. In other words.
aii the cases under the statute which
nave now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted in its
construction the rule at common law.
1t has been said that the court by IN
Producing into the construction of the
statute common law distinctions has
emaSculated 1t. This is obviously un4
true. BY its Judgment every contract
n combination In restraint Of inter
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect of controlling prices
by sitting competition or of establish
ing in whole or in part Il monopoly of
such trade is condemned by the stat
etc. The most extreme critics cannot
instance a case that ought to be con
demned under the stntute which is not
brought within its terms MS thus con
Rtraed.
The suggestion Is also made that the
supreme court by It's decision In the
last two cases has committed to the
court the underlined and unlimited dis
erection to determine whether a case of
restraint of trade is within the terms
OF tne statu This is wholly untrue.
A REASONABLE, restraint of trade at cola.
mo law is we'll understood and Is
clearly dein 4. 1T does not rest in the
discretion 0 the court. 1t must be
limited to az omplish the purpose Of a
lawful main ontract to which in order
that 1t shall be enforceabie at all IL
must be inc dental. IL it q eed the
needs of tha contract it is void.
The test o. reasonableness was never
applied by he court at comman law
to contracts or combinations or CON
%spiracies in restraint of trade whose
purpose was or whose necessary effect
wo1ld be to stifle competition. to con
troll prices or establish monopolies.
The courts assumed power to
say that su b contracts or combina-
tons or con ~,piracies might be lawful
il the partie to them were only mod
crate ia the lse Of the power thus Sc
cured and d not exact from the pub
lie too greet md exorbstant prices. 1t
is true that many theorists and others
engaged in business violating the stat
ute have hoped that IN such line
could be drawn by eoHrFs. but nc court
OF authority has eyer attempted it
Certainly there Is nothing in the deci-
sions of the latest two cases from
which such a dangerous theory of jul
dicial discretion in enforcing this stat
ute can derive the slightest sanction,
Force and Effectiveness of Statute =
Matter Of Growth.
We have been tw~enty-one years max
ing this statute effective for the pur-
poses for which 1t was enacted. The
Knight case was discouraging and
seemed to remit to the states the whole
available power to attack and suppress
the evils of the trusts. Slowly, howev-
er, the error Of that Judgment was cor
rected, and only in the last three or
four years has the heavy hand of the
law been laid upon the great Illegal
combinations that have exercised such
IN absolute dominion over many Of u
Industries. Criminal prosecutions have
been brought, and a number are pend
ing, but juries have felt averse to con-
victing for Jail sentences and judges
have been most reluctant to impose
such sentences on men of respectable
standing in society whose offense has
been regarded as merely statutory.
Still, as the offense becomes better I'M
derstood and the committing Of it par
takes more of studied and deliberate
defiance of the law we q be conf
lent that Juries will convict individu-
ais and that jail sentences will be i'm
posed.
The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard Oil case the supreme
and circuit courts found the combina-
ton to be a monopoly OF the interstate
business of refining. transporting n
marketing petroleum and Its products.
effected and maintained through thir-
ty-seven different corporations, the
stock of which was held by a New Jer-
sey company. 1t in effect commanded
the dissolution Of this combination, d.
rected the transfer and pro rata distri-
button by the New Jersey company of
the stock held by it in the thirty-seven
corporations to and among its stock
holders, and the corporations and tndt-
vidual defendants were enjoined from
conspiring or combining to restore
such monopoly, and all agreements be
tween the subsidiary corporations tend
ing to produce or bring about further
violations of the act were enjoined.
In the tobacco case the court found
that the individual defendants, twen-
ty-nine In number. had been engaged
in a successful effort to acquire COM
plete dominion over the manufacture.
sale and distribution of tobacco in this
country and abroad and hat this had
been done by combinations made with
a purpose and effect to stife competi
ton, control prices and establish a
monopoly. not only In the manufacture
of tobacco, but also of tin foil and he
oriee used In its manufacture and OF
its products of cigars, cigarettes and
snufs, The tobacco suit presented a
a-E a4G -..f& Anaa