Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-12-07
MESSAGE OF
the PRESIDENT
Mr.. Taft. Champions the Anti
trust Statute.
new REMEDIES SUGGESTED.

One-Federal incorporation Recon-
mended and Federal Corporation
Commission Proposed-The Test of
"Reasonableness."
To the Senate and House of Repre-
SentativeS:
This message is the first of several
which | shah send to congress during
the interval between the opening OF
its regular session and its adjourn
ment for the Christmas holidays. The
amount of information to be commu-
nicated as to the operations of the
government. the number of important
subjects calling for comment by the
executive and the transmission to con
Sress of exhaustive reports of special
commissions make it impossible to in
cude in one message of n reasonable
length a discussion Of the topics that
ought to be brought to the attention
of the national legislature at its first
regular session.
The Antitrust Law-The Supreme
Court Decisions.
In May last the supreme court hand
ed down decisions in the suits in equi-
ty brought 10y the United States to en-
join the further maintenance of the
Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri-
can Tobacco trust and to secure their
dissolution. The decisions are epoch
making and serve TO advise the Dusi'
ness world nuthoritatively Of the
scope and operation of the antitrust
net of 1890. The decisions do not de-
part in any substantial way from the
previous decisions of the court in con-
STRUNG and applying this Important
statute. hut they clarity those deci-
sions by further defining the already
admitted exceptions to the literal con
structlon of the act BY the DEGREES
they furnish a useful precedent rs to
the proper method of dealing with the
capital and property of illegal trusts.
These decisions suggest the need and
wisdom of additional or supplemental
legislation to make 1t easier for the
entire business community to square
with the rule of action and legality
thus finally established and to pre-
serve the benefit. freedom and spur of
reasonable competition without loss OF
real efficiency or progress.
No Change In the Rule Of Decision
Merely In Its Form of Expression.
The statute in it's first section de-
caros to be illegal every contract
combination in the form of trust OF
otherwise or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce among the sew
e"al states or with foreign nations
and in the second declares guilty Of {
miSdemeanor every person who shall
monopolize or attempt to monopoliz,
or combine or conspire with any othe
person to monopoize any part of tn,
trade or commerce Of the several state.
or with foreign nations"
In two early cases. where the statut,
was invoked to enjoin transporta
ton rate agreement between inter
state railroad companies, it was hel(
thar it was no defense to show thai
the agreement rs to rates complained
Of was reasonable at common law, be
cause ii was said that the statute wa.
directed against all contracts and com
hinations In restraint of trade. whether
reasonable Mt common law or not Il
was plain from the record, however
that the contracts complained of If
those cases would not have been deem
ed reasonable at common law. In sub
sequent cases the court said that the
statute should be given reasonable
construction and refused to include
within its inhibition certain contrac
tual restraints Of trade which it de
nominated as incidental or as indirect
These cases Of RESTRAINT of trade tina,
the court excepted from the operation
of the statute We're instances which
at common law would have been call
ed reasonable. In the Standard OF
and tobacco cases, therefore, the cour
merely adopted the tests Of the com
mon law and in defining exceptions t.
the literal application Of the statut,
only substituted for the test of beint
incidental or indirect that Of bein.
reasonable, and this without varvin,
In the slightest the actual scope ant
effect of the statute. In other words
all the cases under the statute whicl
have now been decided would hav
heen decided the same way IL tn
court had originally accepted in it
construction the rule at common law.
1t has been said that the court by in
Producing into the construction of tn
statute common law distinctions ha
emasculated it. This is obviously I'm
true. BY its judgment every contrac
and combination in restraint Of inter
state trade made with the purpose o
necessary effect of controlling price
by Sitting competition or of establish
Ing in whole or in part monopoly o
such trade Is condemned by the stat
ute The most extreme critics canno
instance cASe that ought. to be con
demned under the statute which is no
brought within its terms as thus con
strued
The suggestion is also made that tn
supreme court by its decision in TIT
last two cases has committed to tn,
court the underlined and unlimited dis
erection to determine whether case o
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 4!
clearly defined II does not rest IN thu
discretion OF the court 1t must b,
limited to accomplish the purpose of
lawful main contract to which in orde
I.II