Imperial Valley press., 1937-05-05
News Behind the News
Antitrust Laius and History -. H0p
Does the Court Stand? No Ansrer
by Present Trends

WASHINGTON-It is rather commonly be-
lieyed that the antitrust laws virtually have
been emasculated by past decisions OF the Su-
preme Court. But even the most conservative
lawyer has to admit that when it comes to pre-
dieting the courts present-day position on an
old issue. you never can tell.
In antitrust cases the court perhaps, has
demonstrated its mental elasticity more fire.
quently than in any other field. That's one fact
which makes the governments dissolution suit
against the Aluminium Company of America
so interesting The court consistently has held
against price-fiXing agreements among competi-
tors, but its decision as to monopoies-the Alu-
minum Company is charged with being monop-
oily under the Sherman Act-have been varied
The Sherman Act was passed in 1890 De-
signed TO prevent monopolistic corporations from
controlling prices by acquiring plants and re-
stricting production, it prohibited suppression
of competition. It declared illegal every con-
tract, combination in the form of trust or other
wise. or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce Anyone engaging in such a
combination, monopolizing or attempting to
monopolze any part Of that trade was subject
10 a $4,000 fine or year in prison.
In 1895 the Supreme Court took its first
great Whack against the antitrust laws. The
government had sued the American Sugar Re-
filming Co, whose acquisitions mad resulted IN a
nearly complete monopoly. The court held tnat
manufacture inherently local pursuit
and that a combination of manufacturers didn't
Wolfe the act. since it affected interstate COM
merce only indirectly.
tention because the free silver" issue was blaz-
ing. An era of big mergers and consultations
followed President Theodore Roosevelt, differ
entiating between good trusts and bad trusts
held the Sherman Act couldn't be enforced, and
proposed federal Incorporation or licensing OF
corporations for purposes of regulation
But in 1904, deciding the Northern Securl-
ties case. the court ordered dissolution OF com
pany formed to hold stock of competing north
western railroads.
And in 1905 the government was able to
obtain dissolution OF the Beef Trust a pack
ers' combination, in a court decision which
seemed TO overthrow the Sugar Trust decision
by bringing manufacturing within the scope
OF the act.
The Standard Oil and American Tobacco
companies were dissolved in 1911. Simultane-
ouSly the court agonized truSt-busterS by ruling
that the Sherman Act must be construed lin the
light Of reason and that agreements in re-
strant of trade were illegal only when they
limited competition unreasonaby. Later the
court was 10 hold in effect that it was legal
TO establish monopoly unless this were done
with wicked intent.
The United Shoe Machinery case involved an
instance of complete monopoly, but in 1913 the
court approved the corporation on the ground
that It's merger of plants and machines made
for efficiency.
Then in 1920 the court turned down the
government in its suit to dissolve the United
States Steel Corporation. Four justices, with
three dissenting. held that dissolution might
involve a risk TO the public interest.