The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-09-21
Opposes Any Interfer-
ence With Rule
of Reason
POSITION IS PLAIN
Says Supreme Court Dec
sions this Year Give
Law Vitality

Detroit. Mich Scoring William
III. Bryan and others who have de-
nounced the supreme court, Presi-
dent Taft today here at the state fair
delivered an address i'm defense of
tie STANDARD OIL ;,,, Tobacco Trust
decisions by that court. Speaking
upon the subject OF tie trusts,
TAT pan tiaGorly defended the read
ng vi ti!e wo!d reasonable" into
the statute by those Two decisions,
declariNg ina, unGer the Sherman
tasH, as interpreted By tAe court ev-
els oase chat shou,d come within tne
I&w can be suceessiuly pros ecuted
lie sdia tha, tue statements in his
III Nssases 10 congress show him TO be
in complete accord with the inter
probation of the law as made by that
court President TAFT opposed an.
amendment to the Sherman law
which would prevent its interpreta-
tion in the light OF reason.
Discusses Supreme Court Opinions.
81 propose to take up the question
which has occupied the attention o.!
the American people or now 20
wears, that of Industrial combinations
known as Trusts During the last
year we have had twt great decis-
ions by tho Supreme Court OF the
aited %satcs. They are epoch max
ing, and thc public has not yet come
to realize he effect that those de-
cisions are certain to have. Ii is not
that the construction which the
conr: has pllt upon the act is differ
cnt from that which most members
OF the profession. and most subord-
nate courts, and indcet. the Supreme
Court itself, has before Indicated as
the proper construction ul the stat
ute: but ii is that it is now finally
settled. by two fully considered de-
cisions i'll respect to two of the larg-
est and most powerful OF these COM
binatiOns, what their iIiegai1y con-
sists in, and how they are 10 be
treated, in view Of the finding that
they are Illegal and do violate the
provisions OF the socallcd antitrust
or sherman Act.
Persons who do not understand
the effect Of these decisions and real
ly do not understand the law have
q great deal to say which is intended
TO lead the public to the belief that
in some way or other the Supreme
Court has cmasculateh the statute
and prevented its operation against
objectionable and injurious trade
combinations and ronspiracies.
Nothing is further from the truth.
What Decisions Mean.
shall not attempt to give ii 4
close. lawyer-like interpretations. but
1! fhirk il is not departing from the
declaration of the court to say that
they find any contract in restraint of
trade made for the purpose OF eX-
Guiding competition, controlling
prices. or of maintaining monop-
ely in part or in whole, is contrary
e tie statute and is subject TO in
Junction and indictment under this
statute iii the Federal courts where
ii affects interstate trade.
Now, would like to ask Mr..
Elyan or any of the other publicists
2nl iurists who have been denounc-
ing this opinion as the surrender CT
tho rights of the people and a usurp-
a;ian Of judicial bower to tell the
puDiic what particular contract OF re-
stlaint of Interstate trade tic would
coAGemn which would not be con,
cesnned within this definition Of the
court. The Gitiiculty with the litera
!oonstructon OF the statute is that II
would denounce Il great many minol
| Or Incidental Restraints of trade
/ which made the statute ridiculou!
and weakened its effect and lent 81!
port 10 the criticisms and contemi>
Itucus treatment Of The statute b.
these who were opposed TO its pas
sage and enforcement.
| 1t is said that the Supreme Cour
has read something into the statut,
THAT was not there before: that it ha!
inserted the word reasonable be
fore restraints of trade, when tn,
same court had said that this coulj
not be properly done, because Con
gress had evidently not intended t,
include such a limiting word in th
statute. This is not fai: to TIL
court. 1t is true that the court, ii