The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1911-12-07
THE PRESIDENT 5 MESSAGE Nj: l
TO the Senate md House of Rep
.. .,-s,, T0H9ntatiyes. .,s.s- - -

y sts f9s'Ayf ,s rs
To the. Senate md House OF Rep
- - TesentatiYes: -
This message Is the tirst' OF sew.
eral Witch i shall send to Congress
during the interval between q, the
openingkof it's regular, session and
1ts adjournment for ths!s Christmas
holidays, The amount of5Informa-
ton to be communicated as 80 5thsI
operations Of the Govern fnennt, the
number of important subjects call
ing for comment BY the Executive
and the transmission to Congress
of exhaustive reports 4of special
commissions, make It impossible to
include in ono message OF a, reasons
able length n diseusaion Of the
topics that ought to be brought to
the attentions OF the National Leg
islature at Its first regular session
The Antl-Trust :, Law--TEe SUI
preme Court Decisions, =
In May last the Supreme Court
handed down decisions in the suits
In equity brought by the United
States to enioin, the further main
tenance OF the; Standard Oil Trust
and of the American Tobacco Trust,
and to e;-secure.- them dissolution.
The decisions are epoch making
and serve to advise the business
world 4authoritatiYely- 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 constructing and applying this
important, statute, but they clarity
those, decisions by further defin-.
ing the already admitted exceptions
to, the literal construction of the
!, act, BY the DEGREES, they furnish n
useful precedent as to the proper
method Of dealing with the capital
and property Of illegal trusts. These
decisions suggested the need and
wisdom Of additional or supple
mental legislation to make it easier
for the entire business community
to square with the rule of action
and legality thus finally establish.
cd and to preserve the Dene1lt( free
dom, and spur Of reasonable COM
petition without loss OF real eff
cheney or progress. ..#. d..
No Change in the Rule Of Decision.
49,. Merely in the Form Of
Expression,
The statute in it's first section
declares to be Illegal every con-
tract, combination in the form Of
trust or otherwise. or conspiracy. in
restraint Of trade or commerce
among teh several States, or with
foreign nations" and In the second,
declares guilty Of misdemeanor
every person. VINO shall monopolize
or attempt to monopolize or COM
bine or conspire with any other
person to monopo1iZe any part or
the trade or commerce Of the sew
eral States or with foreign ma
tions." -: =.
In two early cases, where; the
statute was invoked to enjoin a
transportation rate agreement be-
tween interstate railroad conrpan-
les, 1t was held that 1t was no de-
Tense to show that the agreement
as to rates. complained of was reas-
enable at common law, because it
was said that the statute was Adi-
rected against all contracts and
combinations in restraint Of trade
whether reasonable :. at. common
law or not = 1t was plain from the
record, however, that the contracts
complained if in those cases would
not have been deemed reasonable
at common law. In subsequent
cases the court said that the statute
should be given a recognizable con-
struction and refused to include
within it's inhibition, certain con-
tractural restraints of.trade which 1T
denominated as incidental or as in
direct.
These cases Of restraint Of trade
that the court excepted from the
operation Of the statute were in
stances which, at common law,
would have been called reasonable.
In the Standard Oil and Tobacco
cases, therefore, the court merely
adopted the tests of the common
law, and in defining exceptions to
the literal application of the statute
only substituted for the test Of be-
ing incidental or indirect, that Of
being reasonable, and this, without
varying in the slightest the actual
scope and effect OF, the statue. In
other. words, all the cases under
the i,statute which have now been
decided would have, been decided
the ,. same way II. If the 4 court had
originally accepted in it's CONSTITUTE
ton the rule at common Jaw, .1 !
It has been said that the court
by Introducing into the construction
Of the statute common-law distinc-
lions, has emasculated it. This isl
obviously untrue. BY it's Judgment