The Washington herald., 1915-04-05
The Government in the Harvester Case.

for thing This is the persistence with which
the government cngs to the view of the anti
! trust law for which some foundation afforded
in the decision in the Northern Security case and
in many of the earlier decisions OF the Supreme
Court The government does not recognize or at
least declines to admit that any change whatever
made in either the popular or the official con-
struction OF the law by the later decisions in the
Standard and American Tobacco 1t main
tains that while corporations legally may attain
any size they wish to they only do this as
long the growth is OF internal character. The
moment one corporation purchases another COM
peting corporation it comes under the ban OF the
law. If the purchase OF a competitor may be toll
Grated in small affair then it may be tolerated
! IN big one and if makers of harvesting
chinerv NAV unite may not makers OF every other
kind OF machinery do likewisc' Why may not all
these lesser combinations be joined into super
combination OF all the Woodworking industries:
What is there TO prevent the creation OF combi-
nations with power to control the market tor
every necessary OF life to prevent alliances be-
tween all the combinations under the control Of
Ia few great masters OF industry?
The government brief here repeats almost the
cxact words OF tho 10 decision OF the Supreme
Court in the Northern Securities in which
tho Northern Securities Company declared to
he Illegal. But the Attorney General. or whoever
prepared tho government brcf IN the Harvester
case torgctS very important fact. This is that
the 10 ! majority decision OF the Supreme Court
i. tho Northern Securities case was made possible
by the deciding vote OF Mr. Justice Brewer, who
said that while he believed the Northern ScCuri-
ties Company was illegal for purely general
sons the opinion handed down by the other four
majority justices went altogether too lar. 1t was
declared in this opinion that any and acquisi
ton OF competitor by another competitor was,
~ the Attorney General contends in his brief in
The Harvester case. unlawful act. Such con-
@trucon OF the law, Mr.. Justice Brewer declared.
was unreasonable.
1t was the construction OF the law suggested
by Mr.. Justice Brewer that the Supreme Court
seemed to authorize later in the Standard Oil
and American Tobacco cases. 1t was i'll brief that
while the Sherman law meant to prevent
harmful monoroc> the light OF reason and COM
mon sense was vet to govern its enforcement. 1t
is true that in the two cases last cited the mem
bers OF tho court held that their view OF this
statute really just the same the view enter
tanned by the court whole in all previous de-
ci>ions; but Justice White, who rendered the de-
cisions in the Standard Oil and Tobacco said
that to avoid all possibility of doubt the construc-
ton OF the law, as finally authorized in the To-
dcfinitive construction all previous decisions or
limitations OF the court to the contrary notwith
standing.
In his argument in the brief the Attorney Cen
era urged with great heat that the controvcr V
in the Harvester case had reference to the fun
darnenta question whether the competitive syS
tenn should continue in the United States and
whether competition and not combination should
he the law OF trade. But it TO most think
ing people that all this settled when the
Supreme Court spoke decisivey, after such long
dcliberatiou, in the last two great in which
tho antitrust law was involved This was in gen
cral toJthc effect that it Is obvious that the bust
ness interests OF country require both COM
petition and combination: that combination can
be declared unlawful merely because it is COM
bination; that combination such is not at all
worthy OF extinction and that the proper standard
from which to Judge such matters is the law OF
reason and Of plain common in each ndi-
vidua case. 1t is w think needed on all hands
that the antitrust law to which Senator Shcr-
mans name attached, represented more
than an attempt to place on the Federal statute
book tho common law in regard to monopoicS
and restraints OF trade which arc in force in the
entire country: and the common law was never
construed 20 forbid trade combinations merely be
cause they were combinations. The necessity Tor
such an enactment by Congress was that under
our Constitution there is such thing Fed
cral common law
The spoken argument before the court in tho
Harvester case is set down for tho present month
VIC believe VIC speak for the general business in
crcst> of the country in expressing the hope that
the court Will hand down a decision in tho case
when il meets for the fall term in October next.