The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-09-19
Challenge to Bryan.

Now, ! would like 10 ask Mr.. Bryan
o,. auy OF the other publicists and
iurists vino have been denounclng
this opinion as the surrender OF the
rights of the people and usnrpa-
ZION OF judicial power 10 tell tue
public what particular contract or
restraint of interstate trade he would
condemn which would not be con
demned within this definition ol me
court The difficulty with the 1T
eral construction OF the statute is
that II would dcpounce great many
minor or incidental restraints III
trade which made the statute ridlcu-
lous and weakened It's effect and
lent support To the criticisms and
contcnptuous treatment OF the stat
ute by those who were opposed TO
Its passage and enforcement
lied bV ,sts'fs q federal circuit judge in
which he said that under the literal
construction of the statute. which
must be enforced. lf there were t%o
persons doing a wagon -eNpresS bnsi-
ness across a state line and they
united in a partnership. the union
la the partnership would be re-
straint or trade in violation OF the
statute, Such e result Is really re-
ductio ad absurdum. and no one
who was In favor OF making the stat
ute effective for the purposes for
which 1t was passed and had any In
telligcnt appreciation OF what the
SldluIc was lnlNIlutu 10 BfCblllUllSl
and what IL meant would contend for
such a construction. II Is true thai
In one of the decisions of The supreme
court there Was statement made
that the term reasonable could not
be introduced into the statute be-
cause congress had not put Il there.
but tho very same court. and the
very same Judge when a case arose
presenting a restraint OF trade that
must he condemned as unia wlul If 4
the statute, said In so many words
That II must he reasonably con-
Sirued. and that II must not be held
10 include contracts that were mere
" incidental restraints of trade and
were not made for that purpose. In
one OF these cases man owned
some STEAMBOATS, that did an inter
state business on The Ohio river He
and IN the sale Of the steamboats, he
wished 10 sell the good VIII Of the
line which he had been running Ac
cordiOglv he stipulated that he would
not engage In tha; business between
those falnc points for certain nuni-
bcr OF wears. This was interstate
business and his contract was in re-
straint OF trade. bur the supreme
court held that IL was mere incl
dental restraint. 1, Q. Incidental 10
The salc OF the good will and so was
not within The statute. This would
have been the same at common law.
whore from time immcmorial such
restraint as this has heen held 10 he
reasonable because limited To the no
cessitv of preserving The good will
which tho vcndcr was selling. and
which but for such all agreement
would he worth nothing, In other
words. the supreme court in this case
gave a reasonable construction 10 the
statute and eliminated from Its upor
alton those harmless useful incidental
restraints growing out or lawful con
tracts which arc made for An en-
ttrelN different purpose from that of
controlling prices or maintaining a
monopoly by supprcssinC competition
and which have ALWAYS becn recoG-
ni2ed as properiV enforceable by
courts OF both law and equity / re-
peat again that in spite of all the
danunciations that We have heard of
the decisions of ;hc supreme court
IN the Standard Oil and the Tobacco
cases. there is not ono who has crlti-
clsed them that can formulate con-
tract In restraint ot trade that ought
10 come within tho statute that does
not come within II under the decis-
Ion OF the supreme court