Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1911-12-06

that the court expected from the OPP
Grafton Of the statute were instances
which. at common law. would have
been reasonable In the Standard
Oil and Tobacco cases, therefore the
court merely adopted the tests of the
common law. and in defininr cNcep-
tons To the literal application of the
statute. only substituted Tor the test
or being incidental or indirect, that
of beine reasonable. and this without
VARYING Ia the slightest the actual
scope and effect Of the statute. In
other words, all the cases under the
statute which have now been decided
would have been decided the same
Wov " the tourt had originally ac-
centcd in its construction the rule at
common law
u has been said that tho cCurt. by
introducing into the construction o.
the statue common-law distinctions.
has cuasOlntcd u 'rhis g. Oh.
viouey untruc BY It's JUDGMENT
every contract AID combination In
restraint OF interstate trade made
with the purpose or necessary cffert
of controlling prices by stiflirc com
petition. or Of establishing in whole
or in part q monopoly Of such trade.
is condemned by the statute The
mos, extreme critics can not instance
case that ought to I've condemned
under the statute which u not
brought within &c terms rs thus con
strued
The suggestion is also made that
the supreme Court by lis decision in
the last two cases has committed to
the court the underlined and unlimit-
cd discretion to determine wlrther
case Of restrain of trade is within
the terms of the statute This Is
wholly untrue \ reasonable res
trairt Of trade AT common law r. we'll
understood and rs clearly defined. II
docs not rest In the discretion Of the
court II must be- limited 10 accom-
plsh the purpose Of Lawful main
contract to which In order that Il
shall he enforceable At all IL must Ne
incidental. Ii II exceed the needs Of
that contract II is vcid
The test cf rcasonablcncss was
never applied nv the court a. COM
mon law to contracts or combinations
or consniracics In restrain % trade
whose purpose was or whose neces-
sarv effect would be- 20 stlflc compc-
titlon. IN control prices. or establish
monopolieS The courts ne,c. as
sumed power 10 say that such CON
tracts or combinations or consriracies
might he lawful II the parties 10 them
were only moderate In the use ~ the
power thus secured and did not eN.
act from the public too great and eX.
orhitant prices. II Is true that manv
theorists and other ENGAGED Ia husi-
ness violating the statute. have hop
ed that some such line coud be drawn
by courts hat not court ~ authority
has ever attempted IL Certainly
there is nothing IN the decisions of
the latest two cases from witch such
a DANGEROUS theory OF judicial discre.
ton in enforcing this statute can do.
ri.c the slightest canctlon
Force and Effectiveness of statute
n Matter of Growth
We have been twcutv-onn years
making this statute effective for the
purposes for which Il was enacted
The knight case was disco RACINE
and seemed 10 remit 10 the states
the whole available power e. attack
and suppress the OWLS Of the trusts
Slowly however. the error ~ tina,
Judgment was corrected. and only Ia
the last three or four wears has The
heavy hand Of the law been laii up-
or the great Illegal comhintious that
have exercised such ar absolute dc.
minion over manv of onr induStrier
Criminal prosecutions have been
brought, and a number are pcndiue.
bui Iuries have felt averse to CO..
viotinr for Jail sentences. and judges