Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1911-12-06
MESSAGE Of
The PRESIDENT
Nj. Tai Champions Tie Anti
trust Stalule
NEW REllEDES SUG6ESTEl


elemental Legislation Nssdsd-Ths
Tebaeos Trust Decision IN Effective
ons-Fsdsral incorporation Recon-
unendsd and : Federal Cooperation
Commission Propossd--Ths Test q
vlsasonabIsnsss." y
No the Senate and House Of Repre-
sentatives:
This message b the first OF several
which shall send to congress during
the interval between the opening Of
Its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount Of information to be commu-
nicated az to the operations OF the
government. the number Of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con-
gress Of exhaustive reports Of special
commissions make it impossible to in
clude In one message Of q reasonable
length q discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
Of the national legislature at it, 6rst
regular session.
The Antitrust law-Ths Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme couft hand
ed down decisions In the suits in equi-
y brought by the United States to en-
Join the further maintenance Of the
Standard on trust and of the Ameri.
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve to advise the bust
ness world authoritatively Of the
scope and operation Of the antitrust
act Of 1890 The decisions do not de-
part In any substantial way from the
previous decisions Of the court In con-
STRUNG and applying this important
statute. but they clarity those deci-
sions BY further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con-
struction Of the act. By the DEGREES
they furnish useful precedent as to
the proper method Of dealing with the
capital and property OF illegal trusts
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom Of additional or supplemental
legislation to make 1t easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule Of action and legality
thus finally established and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur Of
reasonable competition without loss Of
real efficiency or progress.
Nc Change In The Rule Of Decision,
Merely In lts Form Of Expression.
The statute in its flrst section de.
elares to be Illegal 'every contract,
combination In the form Of trust or
otherwise or conspiracy IN restraint
OF trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations
and in the second declares guilty Of Z
misdemeancR.. evefy person who shall
monopsiiseSpr attempt to monopolise
or conhin4sor cuupire with any other
person to nonopDlise any part Of the
trade or commerce Of the several states
Or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statute
was invoked to enjoin q transporta-
ton rate agreement between inter-
state railroad companies, 1t was held
that 1t was no defense to show that
the agreement a. to rates complained
Of was reasonable at common law, be-
cause 1t was said that the statute was
directed against all contracts and COM
binations in restraint Of trade, whether
reasonable at common law or not 1t
was plain from the record. however,
that the contracts complained Of In
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In SUBJ
sequent cases the court said that the
statute should Be given q reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its Inhibition certain contrac-
tual restraints Of trade which It de-
nominated an incidental or a. indirect.
These cases Of RESTRAINT Of trade that
the court excepted from the operation
Of the statute were instances which
ct common law would have been call
Cd 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
ths literal application Of the statute
only substituted for the test Of being
Incidental or indirect that Of being
Hoasopable. and this without varying
IN the slightest the actual scope and
effect Of the statute. In other words,
I'll the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way II the
court had originally accepted IN III
eonstruction the rule at common law.
It has been said that the court by In
producing into the construction Of the
statute common law distinctions has
II Thu. II obviously nm
true. BY its judgment every contract
and combination in restraint Of inter
state trade made with The purpose or
necessary effect Of controlling prices
~ sitting competition or Of establish
ing b whole or in part monopoly Of
buch trade y condemned BY the stat
uta. The oogt extrpns critics cannot
1nntnnco case thst ought to b con