The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-09-29

GeFelOD d DuiedutTdty WttitI VIII bC op
 strong as to alter our form of govern ment from a democracy into a bu-
 reaucracy and which will do so unless
 some statesman Is able to devise some
 means of checking and remedying the evil
 Back in 1890 the people were made rest less in their sleep by the continuing in crease in the cost of living. by graft ex- posures etc., and suddenly became in- fected with the bacilli of reform and elected men pledged to attempt to remedy
 the evil which was rapidly growing and
 as result of this spasm of reform the now famous Sherman antitrust law, fin the construction of which the supreme
 court has performed mental gymnastics
 which weary the brain in an attempt to
 follow and in the opinions thereon make
 such finely drawn points that tl<y cannot
 even be seenl The effect is virtually as
 follows:
 "The act of Congress commonly called
 the Sherman antitrust law declares illegal all contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade or conl- merce among the several states ,or with
 foreign nations and in the territories and the District of Columbia and denounces severe penalties. both criminal and civil
 against any person who shall make or engage in such contracts or conspiraces, who shall monopolize such trade or com
 merce or attempt or conspire with others to monopolize it." The purpose of the
 statute is to permit interstate commerce to flow in it's natural channels unob-
 structed by any combinations, contracts or monopolies and it's prohibitions apply to any contract or combination which stiles, obstructs,a or directly and sub stantially restricts such commerce or free competition therein It is not necessary that the effect should be a total suppress sion of trade a complete monopoly, the unlawful effect being produced when ! the combination deprives the public of the advantages of free competitio1." CBlack's Constitutional Law-Pages 236- 237-23S.)
 In the case of United States vs. Trans Missouri Freight association, which was the first case coming up under this statute, the rule was announced that the language of the act was plain and clear
 and meant that all contracts which re- strained trade (competition and the ad-
 yantages derived therefrom) were eni-
 braced by the statute. After long
 series of opinions by the court in cases brought before 1t, the final rule was an- nounced by the supreme court in the case
 of the United States ys. Standard OH company, and confirmed in the American
 Tobacco company case involving prac- tically the same facts. to be ''The rule
 
 my mind at all.
 Tn order to adopt this rule of reason" the court went back to the law which ex- isted prior to the passage of the act and calmly announced that Congress did not
 intend to change the law then existing by means of the sherman antitrust law, but merely to put heavy penalty on any
 one who failed to obey it. It did this by the following spacious reasoning: If a term has a well known meaning at common law it must be construed when
 used as having the same meaning when
 used in a new statute. The language to
 be construed Is Every contract in re- straint of trade or commercials illegal"
 The term "Restraint of Trade" had a well known and well defined meaning at con-
 mon law. Its meaning was any restraint
 which was unreasonable. therefore Con
 gress when they used the term In the
 sentence Every contract in restraint of trade or commercials illegal, - said Every contract in unreasonable restraint of trade or commercials Illegal" This Is the much discussed Rule of Reason" Justice Harlan, member of the court
 at the time this decision was announced dissented most vigorously from the rule | and even went to the length of saying | that the action of the court in the case was such as to alarm every thinking man who revered the constitution; that 1t
 was an invasion of the powers of the I legislative body by the judiciary granted to the legislative depart ment of government by the constitution
 and as such could not receive any sane | ton by those who revered the constitu- | tion. His reasoning was exactly the op- posite of the rule announced and was virtually as follows: Contracts in re- straint of trade had a well defined mean l ing at common law and 1t makes no diff o<.x.~ r.. xvx.l l or invalid. If the restraint was in unrea- sonable restraint of trade at common law such a 4antract was invalid but by the
 use ofe9ne word Every used in thl