Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-08-12

olies in undue restraint OF interstate
or foreign trade and prescribe punish
ment by fine or Imprisonment. or both,
for any violation thereof, and section
125 OF the revised statutes bars any
violation three years after they are
committed. If, therefore, mbina-
ton or monopoly in unreasonable re-
straint of trade was made in 1902. 1903
or 1904, the proceedings to punish for
the making thereof was barred many
years before this suit was commenced
Section 4 of the act gives jurisdic-
ton to this court to prevent and re
strain violations of this act but 1t
grants this court no power TO punish
past violations thereof. This suit is
not a proceedings to punish the de-
PENDANTS for deeds done in the past.
II Is a suit in equity under section
to prevent and restrain future viola
tions of the antitrust law. 1t looks
TO the future, not 10 the past, and this
court is not only without jurisdiction
to punish defendants for past viola
tons of this law, but persons VINO at
some past time combined 20 unreason-
ably restrain or mcnopolize Interstate
or international trade we're not there
by deprived of their right thereafter
and now to conduct such trade in ODE
dience to the law.
The particular facts proved in this
individual case not only fail to show
that the defendants were unduly or
unreasonably restraining or attempt
ing to monopolize interstate foreign
trade, or threatening to do so at the
time this suit was commenced and
for seven years before that time, but
they establish the converse"
Judge Sanborn declares that the
anti trust law is a resurrection of the
ancient English rule of public policy
against undue and unreasonable re-
straint of trade and unreasonable mo-
nopolies. He insists that it does not
forbid all restraint nor restrictions of
competition, but only those which are
unreasonably injurious to the public,
and that, as Chief Justice White said,
the statute under this view evidenced
the intent not to restrain the right NJ
make and enforce contracts, whether
resulting from combination or other
wise. which did not unduly restrain
interstate or foreign commerce, but to
protect that commerce from being re-
strained by methods. whether old or
new. which would constitute an inter
ference that is an undue restraint
and now rules of Interpretation and
application of this law conclusively
Iii !.
of the highest judicial tribunal in the
land.
1T IS equally we'll established that !
the reason for the prohibition by the |
English rule of public policy and by |
the statute under consideration of I'M |
reasonable restraints and attempts TO |
mcnopolize trade was and is that by |
unduly restricting competition they |
are injurious TO the public in that % |
they raise the prices to the consum- /
ers Of the articles they affect. (2) limit !
their production, CD deteriorate their |
quality. and ca decrease the wages /
of the labor and the prices of materials !
required TO produce them.
And If in any individual case the /
weight OF the evidence fails 10 prove !
that the defendants conduct of their |
business is so restricting or threaten |
ing to restrain competition in theJ
articles they make and sell as TO I'M |
duly injure the public by % raising /
the prices OF the articles TO the CON |
sumers or (2) limiting their produc-
tion, or CD deterorating their quail
ity. or a. decreasing the prices paid |
for the labor or materials required to !
produce them. or (5l by unfair and op- ,
pressive treatment of competitors, !
neither undue or unreasonable re-
straint of competition. nor of trade, |
nor undue attempt to monopolize is es-
tablished. The reason for the rule !
and for the prohibition in the law does .
not exist and the law is inapplicable. |
The facts which have been received |
and other facts and circumstances to
the same effect seem TO me to estab-
lish the conclusion that during the 10
years of the operation of the Interna-
t:onal Harvester company neither it
nor the defendants were. nor are they,
drawing to II. it's competitors share of
the interstate trade in harvesting ma
chinery, or excluding them therefrom,
and that, on the other hand. the Inter
companys proportion of this
trade has been decreasing and thai OF
its competitors increasing.
Among the innumerable acts of the
defendants and their agents in con-
Quoting their vast business for a de-
cade, the government found some that
we're unfair to competitors, but they
we're either unauthorized acts of sub
ordinate agents or sporadic, and en-
ceptional instances. The weight OF
the evidence of the officers and agents
OF their competitors who came in large
numbers to testify, and of all wit
nesses upon the subject, is also over
whelming that the general conduct
and the almost universal practice of