The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1911-12-15

Would Have Trust Overseer and
O. K. for Good Combinations.

WASHINGTON. Dec. 5.-President
Tafts message to Congress-, read In
both houses today, was devoted wholly
to the subject Of trusts and the en-
forcement Of anti-monopoly laws.
The President begins by saying the
message is one OF several he shall send
to Congress before the Christmas holi-
days; that the number OF important
subjects to be treated is too large for
one. He then reviews the ANTITRUST
law and the Supreme Court decisions in
the tobacco trust cases. He says:
This message is the first of several
which 1 shall send to Congress during
the interval between the opening OF its
regular session and it's adjournment for
the Christmas holidays. The amount OF
information to be communicated as to
the operations of the Government, the
number Of important subjects calling
for comment by the Executive, and the
transmission to Congress of exhaustive
reports Of special commissions make it
impossible to include in one message
of reasonable length discussion OF
the topics that ought to be brought to
the attention of the National Legisla-
ture at it's first regular session.
1t has been said that the court, by
Introducing into the construction OF the
statute common-law distinctions, has
emasculated it. This is obviously un-
true. BY its judgment every contract
and combination in restraint of inter-
state trade made with the purpose or
necessary effect Of controlling prices
by sitting competition, or of establish
ing in whole or in part a monopoly Of
such trade, is condemned by the stat
ute. The most extreme critics cannot
instance case that ought to be con-
Il ,t41 $50
brought within it's terms as thus con-
strued.
Court Power Limited.
The suggestion is also made that the
Supreme Court by it's decision in the
last two cases has committed to the
court the underlined and unlimited dis
cretion to determine whether a case of
restraint of trade is within the terms
of the statute. This is wholly untrue.
A reasonable restraint of trade at COM
mon law is well understood and is
clearly defined. 1t does not rest in the
discretion Of the court. It must be
limited to accomplish the purpose of a
lawful main contract to which, in or
der that it shall be enforceable at all,
it must be incidental. If it exceed the
needs of that contract, 1t is void.
The test of reasonableness was never
applied by the court at common law to
contracts or combinations or conspira-
cies in restraint of trade whose pur-
pose was or whose necessary effect
would be to stifle competition, to con-
troll prices or establish monopolies. The
courts never assumed power to say that
such contracts or combinations or con-
spiracies might be lawful If the par
ties to them were only moderate IN the
use Of the power thus secured and did
not exact from the public too great and
CIV rhi ut l.
theorists, and others engaged in busi-
ness violating the statute, have hoped
that some such line could be drawn by
courts; but no court of authority has
ever attempted it. Certainly there is
nothing in the decisions of the latest
two cases from which such dangerous
theory of judicial discretion in enforc-
ing this statute can derive the slightest
sanction.
We have been Fl years making this
statute effective for the purposes for
which it was enacted. The knight
case was discouraging and seemed to
remit to the states the whole avail
able power to attack and suppress the
evils of the trusts. Slowly, however,
the error Of that judgment was cor
rected, and only in the last three or
law been laid upon the great Illegal
combinations that have exercised such
an absolute dominion over many of our
industries. Criminal prosecutions have
been brought, and a number are pend
ing, but juries have felt averse to con-
victing for Jail sentences, and judges
have been most reluctant to impose
such sentences on men of respecta BILE
standing in society, whose offense has
been regarded as merely statutory.
Still, as the offense becomes better
understood and the committing of it
partakes more of studied and DELHI
crate defiance of the law, we can be
confident that jlries will convict indi-
viduals and that Jail sentences will be
imposed
Size Of New Companies.
objection was made by certain inde-
pendent tobacco companies that this
settlement (Tobacco Trust) was unjust
because it left companies with very
large capital in active business. and
that the settlement that would be eff
fective to put all on an equality would
be division Of the capital and plant
Of the trust into small fractions in
amount more nearly equal to that of
each Of the independent companies.
This contention results from q mis-
understanding Of the antitrust law
and it's purpose. It Is not intended
thereby to prevent the accumulation
of large capital in business enterprises
In which such combination can secure
reduced cost of production. sale, and
distribution. 1t is directed against
such an aggregation Of capital only
when its purpose is that OF stirling Of
competition, enhancing or controlling
prices, and establishing a monopoly.
II we shall have by the decree defeated
these purposes and restored competi-
ton between the large units into
which the capital and plant have been
divided VIA shall have ACCOMPLISHED