The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1911-12-05
DEFENDS DECISIONS Of COURT
In Cases Of Standard OIL and
tobacco Companies,
THINKS AMENDMENTS NEEDED
o<Iisves Present Statutes Good ss Far
~ They 90 but suggests supple
mental Leulslation--Fer Fss.
sral Corporation Law.


Washington, Dec 5.--Presiden
Taft's annual message. which WAS rea
In both houses of congress today. deal
exclusively with the antitrust sta tuts
The full text % the message Is as TO
lows:
To the Senate and House Of Repre-
septatives: This message is tho mrs
OF several which shall send to con
gress during the interval between the
opening OF its regular session and ita
adjournment for the Christmas holi'
days The amount of Information to be
communicated as to the operations OF
the government, the number OF impor-
tant subjects calling for comment by
the executive, and the transmission to
congress OF exhaustive reports by spe-
ctal commissions. make II impossible
to include In one message Of a reason
able length discussion OF the topics
that ought to be brought to tho atten-
ton OF the national legislature at its
nrst regular session.
The Antitrust Lsw--The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the Supreme court hand
I'd down decisions In the suits In
equity brought by the United States to
enioin the further maintenance Of the
Standard Oh trust and OF the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust. and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve TO advise the buHA
nxss world authoritattveiy of tho seop,
ah NJ Inn ri as,st
1890. The decisions do not depart 1
any substantial way from the previou
dec>aG&as vi tise court In construjn
and applying this Important statute
but they clarity those important deci
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con.
structton OF the act. BY the DEGREES,
they furnish a 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 supplem entail
legislation to make II easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule of action and legality
thus finally established and to preserve
the benefit freedom and spur OF rea-
sonable competition without loss OF
real efficiency or progress
No Change In tho Rule Of pscislon-
Merely In It's Form OF Expression.
The statute In It's frst section de-
clares TO be Illegal every contract
combination in the form OF trust or
otherwise. or conspiracy. In restraint
OF trade or commerce among the soy.
srai states or with foreign nations /"
and In the second, declares guilty OF ,
misdemeanor every person who shall
monopolize or attempt to monopoiixe
or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopolize any part OF this
trade or commerce of the seyera
states or with foreign nations"
In two early cases, where the statut,
was invoked to enjoin transportation
Agreement between interstate railroad
companies. II was held that II was nj
defense to show that the agreement a,
TO rates complained OF was reasona
at common law. because II was sale
that the statute was directed agains
all contracts and combinations In re-
straint OF trade whether reasonai nj
common law or not II was plain from
the record, however, that the contract
complained Of in those cases woult
not have been deemed reasonable nj
common law. In subsequent cases tn,
court said that the statute should bs
given ressonal construction and 70
fused to include within Its inhibition
certain contractual restraints OF trads
which It dominated as Incidental or Al
Indirect
These cases OF restraint OF trade that
the court excepted from the operation
of the statute were instances which. NJ
common law. would have been called
reasonable. In the Standard OIL and
Tobacco cases. therefore the court
merely adopted the tests OF the com
mon law, and In defining exceptions to
the literal application of the statute.
only substituted for the test Of being
Incidental or Indirect, that OF being
reasonable and this without varying
In 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 way If the court
had originally accepted In its construc.
ton the rule at common law
II has been said that the court, by
Introducing into the construction a