The Washington herald., 1911-05-22


one member. Of the body alone dissent
ing' that, all differences from, implica-
tions in, or even direct statements con-
tained in all previous utterances Of the
court to the contrary notwithstanding,
what Congress meant to do in the Sher-
man act was to prohibit unreasonable
restraints Of trade, this to be determined
py the courts in view Of all the cir
cumstances of the case in each instance
and according to the light of reason and
the immemorial principles Of the COM
mon law; and that, moreover, IL Con-
gress meant to do more than this and
include In its prohibition all restraints
OF trade whatever the Sherman law or
another like 1t would be destructive Of the
freedom OF contract secured to every citi-
zen and would be unenforceable and un-
constitutional
OF course. no intelligent person. not
even the most enthusiastic speculator for
the rise in Wall street, is under any IL
fusion that all this means the end Of
agitation against trusts" Political
uemagogues and blatherskites have found
means OF livelihood in this clamor too
long and popular ignorance and preju-
dice on the subject is still too widely
dispersed to allow the matter to drop
flnally where II now stands
Unable to grasp the extent of the pro-
nouncement of the Supreme Court vari-
Gus members of Congress have already
introduced bills to strengthen the Sher-
man law, and one newspaper in our own
city Is out with a proposition that the
only way TO settle the question SO as
to conserve the rights of the people"
Is FOR the government to appoint COM
missions to fix prices of all agricultural
and industrial products.
Political Question.
In the next Presidential political CAM
paign and those of the future there will
be much nonsense of this sort. So. too,
1t Is undeniable that combinations of
corporations in interstate commerce must
at all times hereafter stand ready to
defend their existence and prove, in
case OF government inquiry or prose-
cution. that they have been fair and
reasonable in their practices. and that
in endeavoring TO further their business
enterprises they have not overstepped
the common law which from the earliest
record of Jurisprudence has held certain
practices to be illegal.
More or less dissatisfaction has been
expressed with the decision OF the Su-
preme Court in that it Is still left in
definite what an "unrea sonable" restraint
of trade is, and that this fact must be
settled by an adjudication Of the court
In each instance. But how otherwise can
il be settled? Neither the Supreme Court
of the United States nor the Congress
OF the United States nor any one
else can lay down rules in advance out
lining with precision the equitable pro-
priety or improperly of all the multi
farious transactions of the business
world.
Hereafter, as heretofore, a corporation
can be hailed into court and made TO
justify its conduct. But each case will
stand by itself and no inclusive law can
be appealed to by the government that,
literally construed, would make even a
business partnership illegal; nor can it
be maintained by the prosecutor that
mere combination of corporations en-
gagged in interstate trade is in and of
itself unlawful. Doubtless from a strictly
legal point of view great interest at
taChes to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the American Tobacco case.
which, il is to be hoped, will be handed
down a week from to-day. Here the
Supreme Court will apply the principles
that IL laid down in the Standard Oil
case; and although, of course, applica-
tion of these principles was also made in
the Standard Oil case il is generally
conceded that the application in the
tobacco case will pc far more instruc-
tive.
Marks Epoch In Growth.
Yet, fully bearing in mind all these
matters, it must still be said that last
Mondays decision of the Supreme Court
marked an epoch in the financial and in
dustrial history of our country. While
the growth to maturity of every great
commercial nation is gradual, there are
certain distinct stages in it that can be
recognized in historical retrospect. The
stage that our country has just passed
Is the same as that reached in England in
the year 1894 when the House of Lords,
in the famous Mogul case. decided that
previous constructions of the law of Eng
land; as regards industrial combinations.
must be revised and TO a certain extent
reversed in the light of modern develop
ments and of the current necessities of
trade The House of Lords held in that
case that a great class of business agree
ments, that in former times would have
been considered to be in restraint Of
trade, were to be considered az legal and
as helpful to the country's business. The
highest judicial tribunal of our country
has now arrived with substantial unanim-
ity at the same conclusion.
The market question Is, of course, no
business or market question at all ex-
cept in the most favorable sense, and
last weeks bank statement showed that
the reserves of the local clearing house
banks were practically at the same high
figure as they were at the correspond
ing date in 1897, when other general con-
ditions were so nearly parallel with those
Of to-day. Events of the week indicate
that the Mexican difficulty is pretty near
ly at an end, and there really only re-
mains "overhanging" the situation-the
decison in the American Tabacco case
alone excepted-the fear of what Con-
gress may do in the line of tariff legisia-
ton at the present extra session. Yet
even in this fast respect fears can hard
ly be great on the part of sensible people,
since it is plain that no piece of real
tariff legislation can pass, that the whole
tariff talks becoming popularity recog-
nized as a piece of political bluff and
and that, desirable as the event
might be, II is even doubtful II the
Canadian reciprocity bill can become a
law.