The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-30

tion the court had given the law i'm
the Standard Oil case recently de-
andbed niaTd The rnT,n chief igs,se hSn Sn
rule Of reason law as laid down
by the court In the STANDARD Oil
case. He said
In that case IT was held without
Of the court that as the statute had
nor defined the words restraint or
trade. II became necessary TO con-
srrue these words. duty which
could only be discharged by resort
10 reason. We say the doctrine thus
stated was I'm accord with all tho
previous decisions OF this court.
despite the fact that the contrary
tributed TO some OF the expressions
used in two prior decisions tIhe
Trans Missouri Freight association
and Joint Traffic cases). That such
view was a mistaken one was fully
pointed out in the Standard oil case
and is additionally shown by pas
sage in the opinion in the Joint Traf-
fic case as follows: The act Of CON
eress must have a reasonable con-
struction, or else there would scarce
ly he an agreement Of contract
among business men that could not
he said to have Indirectly or re-
motely some bearing on interstate
commerce and possibly restrain it,
Rule Of Reason" Applied.
Applying the rule OF reason TO the
construction OF the statute. il was
held in the Standard Oil case that
as the words restraint of trade al
common law and in the law Of this
country al The time OF adoption OF
The antitrust act only embraced acts
or contracts or agreements or com
passage Of the public interests by
unduly restricting competition or un-
duly obstructing the due course OF
trade or which, either because OF
their Inherent nature or effect or be-
cause of the evident purpose OF the
acts. etc, in1uriously restrained
trade, that the words as used in the
statute were designed to have, and
did have. but like significance.
1T WAS therefore pointed out that
that statute did not forbid or re-
strain the power 10 make normal and
usual contracts to further trade by
resortinc 10 all normal methods.
whether by agreement or otherwise
10 accomplish such purposes. In
other words it was held not that acts
which the statute prohibited could he
removed from the control OF its pro-
hibitions by finding that they were
not unreasonable but that the duty
10 interpret which inevitably arose
from the general restraint OF trade
should be given meaning which
would mol DESTROY the individual
right 10 contract and render difficult
If not impossible the movement of
trade in the channels of interstate
commerce-the free movement of
which 1t was The purpose of the
statute TO protect.
"The soundness OF the rule that the
statute should receive a reasonable
construction. after further mature
deliberation, we see no reason to
doubt
Indeed the tendency for not de-
parting In this case from the stand
ard OF the rule of reason which Is
universal in, Its application is so
effect TO the remedial purposes which
The act under consideration contem-
plates and to prevent that act from
destroying all liberty of contract and
all substantial right TO trade and
thus causing the act to be at war
with Itself by annihiIating the fun
damental right of freedom to trade
which. on the. very fact OF the act
1t was enacted to preserve, is Illus
tratcd by the record before us.
standard Oil Decision Reaf2irmed.
In truth the plain demonstra ;ion
which this record gives of the in
Jury which would arise from and
he promotion Of the wrongs which
The statute was Intended TO guard
against. which would result from Civ
ing TO the statute a marrow. un-
reasoning and unheard- of conslrli
ton as illustrated by tho record be-
iorc us, III DosSlbIc serves 10 strength
en- our conviction as to the correct
ness OF the rule of construction. the
RUE Of reason. which was applied
in the Standard OIL case. the apDlica-
tion of which rule TO the statute we
now. in the most unequivocai terms.
re-cXpress and re-affirm.
When II came to an application nj
the law as laid down in the Stand
ard OIL case 10 the tobacco cases.
all the difficulties suggested by tie
mere form In which the assaiIed
transactions were clothed became OF
no moment. This was because he
said, the Standard Oil case held that