Evening star., 1914-08-12


or imnrisonment, or both. for any viola
tion thereof and section 1t3 or the ne
yised Statutes bars any prosecution undeI
these acts for such violation three years
after they are committed Ii, thereIore'
a combination or monopoly in unreasoil-
able restraint of trade was made IN l9oZ,
1908 or 1904. the proceedings 10 puilisll
for the making thereof was parreu Hiahy
wears before this suit was commenced
Section of the act gives Jurisalc.loii
of this court to prevent and restrain Nio-
lations of this act but it grants thls
court no power to punish past VIOLATIONS
thereof. This suit Is not a proceeding " "
punish the defendants for deeds done III
the past 1t is suit In equity under
section 4 to prevent and restrain future
violations of the antitrust law II LOOKS
TO the future not to the past, ana tnis
court Is not only without jurisdiction 70
punish defendants for past violations Oh
This law but persons who at some past
time combined to unreasonably restrain
or monopolize interstate or lnternatlonai
trade were not thereby deprived OF their
right thereafter and now to conduct sucn
trade in obedience to the law.
Sees Failure to Prove.
The particular facts proved in this
individual case not only fall to show tnat
the defendants were unduly or unreason-
ably restraining or attempting to monopo-
Ijze interstate or foreign trade or threat
en,ng to do so at the time this suit was
commenced and for seven years oeIore
that time, but they estaoii tne coh-
verse"
Judge Sanborn declares that the anu.
trust law is a resurrection OF the ancient
English rule of public policy against un-
due and unreasonable restraint OF traoe
and unreasonable monopolies. He insists
that it does not forbid all restraint nor
restrictions of competition. but only those
which are unreasonably injurious 70 the
public and that as Chief Jusuce Nnite
said, "the statute under this view evil
,lenced the intent not to restrain the right
to make and enforce contracts. whetnef
resulting from combination or otherwise
which did not unduly restrain interstate
or foreign commerce. but to protect that
commerce from being restrained by meth
DDS. whether old or new. which would
constitute an interference that is an un-
due restraint" are now rules OF in
depreciation and application OF t9ls
law conclusively established by the
repeated decisions of the highest Ju-
dicial tribunal in the land
TT is equally we'll established" he adds,
that the reason for the prohibition by
the English rule of public policy and
by the statute under consideration OF
unreasonable restraints and attempts
to monopolize trade was and is that
by unduly restricting competition they
are injurious to the public in that t1)
they raise the prices to the consum-
ers of the articles they affect. (2)
limit their production. 80 deteriorate
their quality. and (4) 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 to prove
that the defendants conduct of their
business is so restricting or threaten
ing to restrain competition in the ar
ticles they make and sell as to unduly
injure the public by d) raising the
prices of the articles to the consum-
ers, or (2) limiting their production, or
80 deteriorating their quality, or (4)
decreasing the prices paid for the la
Dor or materials required to produce
them, or (5) by unfair and oppressive
treatment of competitors, neither un-
due or unreasonable restraint of COM
petition. nor of trade, nor undue at
tempt to monopolize is established.
prohibition in the law does not exist
and the law is inapplicable.
Not Monopoly, He Says.
The facts which have been recited
and other facts and circumstances to
the same effect seem to me to estab-
lish the conclusion that during the
ten years of the operation of the In
ternational Harvester Company neither
it nor the defendants were. nor are
they. drawing to it its competitors
share of the interstate trade in har-
vesting machinery. or excluding them
fherefrom. and that, on the other
hand. the International company's pro-
portion of this trade has been de-
rreasing and that OF its competitors
increasing.
Among the innumerable acts of the de-
PENDANTS and their agents in conducting
their vast business for decade the gov
ernment found some that were unfair to
competitors, but they were either un-
authorized acts of subordinate agents or
sporadic and exceptional 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 overwhelm-
ing that .he general conduct and the al
most universal practice of the defendants
and their agents was, and is, free from
al methods and acts either unlawful, un-
fair or oppressive toward their competi-
tors. that il has left no doubt that the
tonsistent and persistent purpose, policy.
rule of action and practice of the defend
ants has been, and is, to avoid and pre-
vent all acts and methods unfair. unjust
y oppressive toward their competitors
Prices Slightly Increased.