The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-08-12

antl-trust law is a resurrection of the
ancient English rule of public policy
against undue and unreasonable re-
stralnt of trade and unreasonable mon
|opolles. He insists that it does not
forbid all restraint nor restrictions of
competition, but only those which are
unreasonably injurious to the public,
ana mat as Chief Justice White said,
The statute under this view evidence
ed the intent not to restrain IT, right
to make n enforce contracts. Wheth-
er resulting from combination or 9TH
erW1se, which did not unduIy restrain
interstate or foreign but TO
protect that commerce from being re-
strained by methods, whether old or
new, which would constitute an in
reference that is an undue restraint,
and now rules of Interpretation and
application of this law c~onclusively
OF the highest judicial tribunal in. the
land.
1T is equally we'll established that
the reason for the prohibition by the
Engl1sh rule of public policy and by
the statute under consideration of UNI
reasonable restraints and attempts to
monopollze trade was and is that by
unduly restricting competition they
are injurious to the public in that. Cd
they raise the prices to the sun
OF the articles they affect, (2) limit
thelr reduction. (5) deteriorate the
quality, and, C4 decrease the wages of
the labor and the prices of materials
required to produce them.
'And II 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 Cd raising the
prices OF the articles to the consumers,
or, CD limiting their production, or, (3)
deteriorating the quality, or, "a de-
creasing the prices paid for the labor
or materials required to produce them,
or, (5) by unfair n depressing treat
ment or competitors, neither undue or
unreasonable restraint of competition,
nor of trade, nor undue attempt to
monopOlize is established. The reason
for the rule and for the prohibition in
the law does not exist n the law is
inapplicab BILE.
The facts which have been recited
and other facts and circumstances to
the same ERECT seem to me to estab-
fish the conclusion that during the ten
years Of the operation of the Interna-
t1onal Harvester Co, neither it nor the
defendants were nor are they, drawing
to 1t. its competitors share of the in
terstate trade in harvesting machin-
cry, or excluding them therefrom, and
that. on the other hand, the Interna-
tlonal comIany's proportion Of this
trade a. been decreasing and that of
it's competitors increasing.
Among the innumerable acts of the
defendants and their agents in con-
Quoting their asst business for a de-
CAGE, the government found some that
were unfair to competitors, but they
were either unauthorized acts of sub
ordinate agents or sporadic and excep-
t1onal instances. The sight Of the evil
dence of the officers and agents of
their competitors who came in large
to testify, and Of all witness
es upon the subject, is also over
Whelm1ng that the general conduct
and the almost universal practice of
the defendants and their agents was
and is free from all methods and acts
either unlawful, unfair or oppressive
toward their competitors, that it has
left no doubt that the consistent and
persistent purpose, policy, rule of ac-
ton and practice of the defendants
has been and is to avoid and prevent
all acts and methods unfair, unjust or
oppressive toward their competitors.
"The evidence in this suit gems to
me to present q new case under the
dHtl-truSC law. mo case has been found
in the books and none has come under
observation in which the absence
of all the evils against which that law
was directed at the time the suit was
brought and for seven years before
was so conclusively proved as in this
suit, the absence of unfair or oppres-
treatment of competitors, of I'M
just or oppressive methods OF compe-
tition, the absence of the drawing of
an undue share of the business away
from competitors and to the defend
ants, the absence of the raising of
prices of the articles affected to their
consumers, the absence of the limiting
of the product. the absence OF the de-
terioration of the quality, the absence
of the decrease of the wages of the Ia
borers and of the prices of the materi-
ais, the absence, in short, OF all the
elements of undue injury to the public
and undue restraint of trade. together
with the presence of free competition