The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-09-18

=
ute by the supreme court, but include
within their construction of it, which
reasona BILE men would think 1t wise or
proper to make criminal.
Good and Bad Trusts.
Now, l desire to call attention to d
very broad distinction that many per-
sons have failed to draw or perceive
between a reasonable construction of
the statute which the supreme court
has insisted upon and the Introduction
of the word reasonable in the statute
so as to lead to result by which COM
binations for the purpose of restrain
ing trade with a view to controlling
prices and maintaining a monopoly
could be held to be reasonable and thus
lawful Until the decision of the SUI
preme court in these last two cases
there was a clearly defined hope in the
minds of many business men who had
reached the conclusion that 1T was i'm
possible to conduct business on a free
competitive basis, and that it was
necessary to secure monOpOlist1c con-
troll of prices and competition in order
to make business reasonably profitable
that in some way or other the statute
could be construed so as to make it ap-
ply only to unreasonable monopolies
and unreaSona BILE exclusion OF COM
petition and control of prices They
had in their minds the thought that in
some way or other a standard could be
set by which if those who enjoyed the
monopoly and the restraint of COM
petition and the control of prices did
not abuse their power to the point OF
seeking from the public exorbitant
profits their arrangements could be
held to be only reasonable and not
within the statute or punishable by
law. In.my message of January Z, 1911,
on the interstate commerce and anti
trust laws and federal incorporation,
used this language:
Many people conducting great bust
nesses have cherished a hope and a be-
lief that in some way or other lne
nay be drawn between good trusts
and bad trusts and that it is posi-
BILE by amendment to the antitrust law
to make a distinction under which
good combinations may be permitted 10
organize. suppress competition, control
prices, and do it all legally II only
they do not abuse the power oy tax
ing too great profit out OF the busl-
ness. They point with force to certain
notorious trusts as having grown INTO
power through criminal methods Dy the
use of illegal rebates and plain cheat
ing and by various acts utterly VIOLA
tive of business honesty or morality
and urge the establishment OF some ie-
gal line of separation by which cflml-
nal trusts of this kind can be pun
ished, and they, on the other hand, be
permitted under the law to carry on
their business. Now the pubic, ana
rid themselves of the idea that such a
distinction is practicable or can be
into the statute Certainly
under the present antitrust law no
such distinction exists 1t mas peeh
proposed, however. that the word 'rea-
sonabIe' should be made a part of the
statute and then that it should be left
to the court to say what IS a reason
able restraint OF trade, what is a rea-
sonable suppression of competition.
what is reasonable monopoly 1 ven
ture to think that this is to put into the |
hands of the court a power impossible
to exercise on any consistent principle |
which will insure the uniformity Of |
decision essential to just judgment 1t |
is to thrust upon the courts burden |
that they have no presidents to enable |
them to carry. and to give them a |
Sower approaching the arbitrary, the |
abuse of which might involve our whole |
judicial system in disaster"
This paragraph has been quoted and |
spread on the record of the senate on /
tie motion of 4 senator who consider |
ed this to be at variance with the de |
-isions of the supreme court Instead