The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-21

tTaOe.
in the Trans. Missouri Freight Asso-
ciation case1t the Supreme Court decided
that Il contract which limited the trad
Ing power of the railroad companies
that subscribed to the contract. in the
matter of rates and otherwise. was n
restraint of trade within the statute.
1t appeared on the face of the opinion
that the contract was an unreasonable
restriction of the trade, but tho Court
| took ZIP the question whether 1t mnde
any difference whether It was reason
| able or not and decided that Congress
did not intend to apply the standard
| OF reasonabieness or unrcasona bleness,
! but intended TO dcnounce all contracts
! in restraint OF interstate trade. III a
/ number OF subsequent decisions, how
ever, in which. there was presented to
! the Court tho question whether con-
tracts which were actually in restraint
OF interstate trade were within the
statute, the Court held that they We're
were indirect restraints OF trade. and
| in other eases, because tho restraints
OF trade were incidental, showing that
the Court was not willing 10 hold tina;
The literal construction Of the statute
was the right one. III the present de-
ctsion the Court goes back and says
that II would have been wiser 10 hold
that the Court must use lis reason in
deciding whether a contract was with
in the evil aimed al by the law. and,
therefore. that 1t might be read as il the
statute contained the words "unreason-
able or iundue" before restraint OF
trade. but the Court in the opinion, in
PRODUCES 4 standard and imposes a
limit in the mental process by which
the Court is TO decide whether con-
tract Is reasonable or unreasonable i'll
its restraint o. trade. and that limit is
That If the contract is made for the pur-
pose OF limiting production. enhancing
Ipricps, suppressins competition or cs-
iiab!ishng a monopoly. then it is unrca
sonabie and ough, to be condemned:
but ii the cnmbina ton or contract is
nothing but Il normal Development,
with no such purposes as these, and
merely for the purpose of securing
economy in business. and with no cir
onmstances tending to show desire TO
enhance prices, destroy competition
ana Cypress The public, then II may he
deemed reasonable. Indeed, ii seems
TO be Z substitution OF the alternative
e,,,I,5.v -. Observation-Disclosures ,.t, 49,.
alternative direct or indirect" or for
the alternative 'incidental" Or prin-
ciiiai" The decision excerpts from the
ope:ation OF the statute restraints OF
trade that are reasonable, which is
equivalent to the exceptions heretofore
made as incidental or indirect.
( The following passage has been culled
ont from President Taft'4 message as
/ imdica,iYc fine dimerencc between his
/ view ma that OF the Supreme Court
I Many people conducting great bus
I intsses have cherished a hope and a
Naiief thar in some way or other /. line
may be drawn between good trusts
and bad trusts and that II is possible.
BY amendment 70 the nnti- trust law, 10
make 4 distinction under which good
combinations may be permitted 10 or
ganize, suppress competition, control
prices, and do ii all legally. ii only
They 90 not abuse the power l,y taking
TOO great profit out or the business.
they point with force TO certain noto-
rious trusts as having grown into
power through criminal methods. by
the use OF illegal rebates ana plain
cheating and by various acts utterly
t1i1 a. df tSin
rality. and urge the establishment of
som. legal line Of separation by which
criminal trusts or thi, kind can be
punished. and they. on the other hand.
he permitted under the Law 10 carry OH
their business Now, the public. and
Especially The business public. ought 10
lid themselves Of tho idea that such a
distinction Is practicable or can be in
trsinctd into tile statute Certainly,
under tie present antitrust law. no
such distinction exists. 1t has been
proposed however that the word 'rea-
4 sonatle' should he made part of the
statute, and then that +, should lie left
ito tho CoHrt 70 say what is a res son-
abla restraint of trade VIVA; Is a rea-
Z sonahie Suppression Of competition.
%fat iH fcasune ble monopoly. ven
tN:e 10 think That This Is to ouv into
Tie .nandk Of tie court power impos
sibq 10 eAercisc 81 ans consistent
4 prinmre which will insure tie uni
+ formitS Of decision ESSENTIAL 10 just
iudSaient. II il 10 Thrust upon the.
courts Y burden that they have no pre-
ceil%nis to enable them q carry, and
/ To give ihem 9 powei~ a pproaching ire
I a.hltiary. Inc apiise Of which might
IinI@lte os'f whole Judicial system ii
II Ans>a0tInn'lois % ,jiia viz snow
! alsatl5 tiat hlt President TAN was
+ deAii"e ril'i #es not the question az
i4lefe r9aaonahie Or unreasonable lte
:;i!nts # 'r'flc alone bul was the
taneiilioh wGoticr by The rss n the
#"rd ''rcatonaiI.' or Notwithstanding,
III arpliea not only to restraint Of
;rade, M 10 the sunpression oftoniie-
tition ami monoponca The Court shpuid
ht cIl5uGNJGrtlH ~ ,o,.,., ,,,,.,l,,