Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1911-05-17

throat of this country in respect even
to~he necessities of life; and congress
had before it the great question as to
how these evils were to be remedied,
so far as congress had the power to
remedy them.
How Congress Met the Situation.
Then congress said to all the people
of this country: I'VE are not going to
bother the courts or ourselves with any
inquiry as to what contracts are in
restraint, of trade reasonably or un-
reasonable. We aer not going to have
THAT to any jury. We are not going to
leave that to any circuit judge We
will determine it as a. part Of the pol
icy of the United States that so far
as Interstate trade is concerned, no
body or corporation shall make or at
tract that in amy degree restraints in
terstate trade"
Intent of Congress Plain.
Can anyobdy doubt the meaning of
those, words? If you say two and two
make four, you would not make it any
palmer than these words make out the
intention of congress.
The Trans Missouri Case.
In 1895. fifteen years ago, a case was
in this court known as the transmits
souri, case. The railroads in that case
Ildu ceIHe TO MAKE an agreement ABOUT
rates, and the question was whether or
not that agreement was in violation
of the anti trust law of 1890. That
question involved the construction as
TO The scope and meaning of that anti
trust law.
What Court Said IS Years Ago.
What did this court say? Pardon me
for reading a little to show exactly
what was IN. their minds. it is said,
in, Ill;
jurist. Mr.. Justice Peckfam: While
the statute prohibits all combinations
in the form of trusts or otherwise, the
limitations are not confined to that
form alone. All combinations which
are in restraint of trade or commerce
are prohibited whether in the form of
trusts or in any other FORM
True Construction of Statute.
The next question to be discussed is
as to what is the true construction of
the statute assuming that it applies
to common carriers by railroad. What
is The meaning,y the court asks, "of
the language used in the statute that
every contracts mbination in the form
of trusts, or otherwise, or conspiracy
in restraint of trade or commerce
among the states. or with foreign ma
tions, Is hereby declared to be illegal? ?'
'No Exceptions or Limitations"
The court says: "By the simple use
of the term contract in restraint of
trade" all contracts of that nature,
whether invalid or otherwise, would be
included. and not alone that kind of
contract which was invalid and unen-
forceable as being in unreasonable re-
straint OF trade. When, therefore, the
body of the act pronounces as Illegal
every contract or combination IN re-
straint among the several states. the
plain and ordinary meaning of such
La t. -
contract alone which is IN unreason-
able restraint of trade but all the con.
tracts are included in such language
and no exceptions or limitations can be
adduced without placing in the act
that which has been omitted by con-
gTess"
Act Applies to Railroads.
The conclusion which we have drawn
from the examination above made in
to the question is that the antitrust
act applies TO railroads and that it
renders Illegal
"Of course if 1t applies to railroads
it applies to any other combination
and that it renders illegal all agree
ments which are in restraint Of trade
or commerce, as we have defined that
expression and, the question then
arises whether the agreement before
is of that nature
And they held that it was.
Inc JOINT frAfhc Case.
But the controversy did not end
there. Two years later, another case
came from the west, known as the
joint traffic case, decided in Ill U. S.
There the question was whether a Ger
tain traffic agreement in that case was
IN violation of the antitrust law.
Court Asked to Recant Former Opinion.
Now. for the third time, the same
agreements are employed and the court
is again asked to recant it's former
opinion and to decide the same ques-
tion in direct opposition to the con-
clusion arrived at In the trans Missou-
ri case.
Opinion on Safety Appliance Act.
Within the last hour at any rate, an
opinion has been handed down for this
court today in which, in a case aris-
ing under the safety appliance act, it
WAS said that such and such was the
safety appliance act, such and such
was it's meaning; that this court has
or five ears ago
Wealth and Power Should Make No
Difference.
1t is ouite-true that what was said in
that case concerned only the lives and
the limbs of railroad employees and pas
sengers. However important the law
may be, we will not consider the ques-
tion as to whether this former con-
struction is right, because if we are
wrong, go to congress and get the leg
islsItioE. That is one case. While this
happens to be a case of an overshad-
owing combination of such vast wealth
and enormous power that it may fair
ly be deemed menace to the general
business interests of the country; but
this difference ought not to induce us
to depart from settled. wholesome
rule which, being faithfully observed,
will guard the integrity and secure the
safety of the nation and of its in
stitutions against the attacks of those
who would undermine all law and Who
would for the sake of present adj
vantages and ends be willing to undo
the work of the fathers.
Judicial Should Not Encroach on Leg
islative.
Why do 1 say to undo the work of
the fathers? If there is any feature in
our governmental system that is known
among the nations of the earth it is
that provision in the federal constitu-
ton which divides the departments OF
government among three CO. coordinate
MISUNDERSTANDING executive, and
judicial; and neither branch has the
right to encroach upon the domain of
the other.
Parfh Of Oninion Miechievoue