Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-05-16
TWO VIEWS IN HOUSE
Of COURTS DECISION
Judicial Body Declared. to
Have Usurped Powers Be-
longing to Congress.

Members Of the House Of Representa-
tives commented frankly and with in
terest today on yesterdays decision Of
the Supreme Court of the United States
dissolving the Standard Oil Company. 1t
seemed to be the general opinion that
the court, In writing the word ''unreason-
able into the law in order to provide
for a distinction between reasonable"
and unreasonable restraint of trade
by combinations of capital doing an in
terstate business. infringed somewhat
upon the legislative functions Of Congress.
Representative Mann of Illinois. the
minority leader. who was chairman Of the
committee on interstate and foreign COM
merce in the last Congress. said today
that In his opinion the courts interpreta-
ton and the stress laid upon "unreason-
able restraint were necessary.
Approves Courts Action.
II am pleased with the decision" he
said. "Of course the question Of whether
the court usurped the legislative function
would be raised regarding the injection
Of unreasonable into the law. But If
the court had contented itself with a
decision bearing only on the case in
point the effect on the business Of the
IF it had simply adjudged the Standard
Oil Company guilty under the law, with
out defining the law, apparently every
combination of business In the country
would have been threatened. Either the
entire business world would have been
plunged into chaos or else Congress
would have been forced at once to amend
the law. I am convinced that the court
acted wisely and for the best interests
of the country. 1t has been apparent
linz tho
some distinction between reasonable and
unreasonable restraint of trade would
have to be made. The law was never
intended to make war on every corpora
ton which might operate In restraint OF
trade.
There are many corporations doing an
absolutely legal. straightforward business
which would fall within the law under
such a narrow Interpretation. But no
one believed that the law was to be in
terpreted in such a narrow sense.
This decision means that every case
brought under the Sherman law must
stand on its own bottom. Each individual
case must be decided on it's own indi-
vidual merits. Tn this way a series of
precedents. which will perfect and in
terpret the law, will be built UP. until
the administration of the statute becomes
a matter Of precedent.
Meets Wishes Of Trusts.
A view entirely antagon1St1c TO fnat
expressed by Mr.. Mann was taken by
Representative Adamson of Georgia,
chairman Of the interstate and foreign
commerce committee.
1.-THE Supreme Court Of the United
States" said Mr.. Adamson. had no con-
stitutional power to amend the Sherman
law by writing into that statute the word
Unreasonable The trusts tried time
and time again to amend the law in that
way, by the insertion of that one word,
bu failed.
With that In the law they would be
willing to continue their present bust
ness methods, and take their chances
with the court. Congress refused to
amend the law in that way.
THAT was Mark Hannas plan. He
wanted the law to distinguish between
good trusts and bad trusts, but Con-
gress declined to make the distinction.
Now the Supreme Court takes on itself
the power of legislation. which was ex-
pressly reserved to Congress by the Con-
stitution. and proceeds to write into the
law what Congress refused to consider"