Evening star., 1941-11-25

Certaintee &ea
Products Corp. David Lawrence.
and all the executives of these and
other companies which had been
Joined in suit by the Justice De-
partment and accused of con-
spiracy to violate the statute.
There are probably no more COM
plicated laws on the statute books
than the antitrust laws and yet
the Justice Department has under
taken to lay the fine points of the
statute before juries that cannot
possibly be trained in the complex
tiles Of the law or the economic
circumstances.
Once in a while a jury impressed
by the array of Government at
torneys and the apparent eager
ness Of the Government for a con-
viction, will find themselves swayed
into a verdict OF guilt, as in the
tobacco cases at Lexington, KY. At
other times jury has acquitted
the individuals and convicted a
corporation, as in the case of Gen.
eral Motors.
Aware Of Dangers.
Federal judges have been aware
Of the dangers of bringing criminal
prosecutions as a means of charting
4 course on a complex economic
situation and Judge Lindley at South
Bend. Ind, wanted to rule on a mo-
ton to dismiss, only he feared that
the Government would not be able
to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Goldsborough, however,
who is a Roosevelt appointee and
former member of Congress, is the
nrst Judge to analyze the cases sub
mitted and to direct the jury to
bring In 4 verdict Of acquittal
What he said to the jury was taken
down geographically and part Of
1t follows:
Nov the court, as a citizen, is OF
the opinion that the Antitrust Di-
vision Of the Department OF Justice
has been doing, and is now doing.
what 1t can under the law to assist
in bringing the public to a realza-
ton OF the fact that the poesibil-
tiles Of the Sherman Act are such
~ to assist in so breaking down the
control OF powerful influences as
TO assist in the re-establishment OF
the democratic spirit.
Nov, in that endeavor II, Of
course. should have public support.
That support cannot go to the ex-
tent Of 10 constituting the Sherman
Act IS to 90 outside its provisions in
order to ef1ectuate what might be
thought q good objective.
No Benevolent Despot."
ANY one who has had experience
In public life and has done q lot OF
thinking about 1t realizes that when
too mucfih power is lodged anywhere
1t Is always misused; which is only
another way of stating thing which
is continuously forgotten, that in the
very nature of the human hame-up,
there can be no such thing as
benevolent despot. Reason denies
It and experience establishes the
soundness of the reasoning. -.
II do not think it is particularly
easy to distinguish the Supreme
Court decisions involving the Sher-
man Act. The courts are naturally
Influenced by the circumstances Of
\ particular case, and when they are
Influenced by the circumstances
Of 4 particular case they naturally
endeavor to find the principle which
would justify the conclusion they
want to reach. '''
Now with all that in mind, with
all those legal rights in mind, with
all those natural human conclusions
involved, the court is perfectly clear
that the evidence does not show any
thing which is necessarily inconsist-
ent with the innocence of the de-
PENDANTS. -
Nov, certainly in a criminal pro-
eeeding, it is perfectly clear that
uyhoro rno ocoro blo v,,;,,Js oo,,lL ,,.+
differ on the fact that the testimony
Is consistent with innocence-it may
be consistent with guilt-but if the
testimony can be so construed among
men Of reasonable minds-in other
words, If all men of reasonable minds
would reach the conclusion that in
nocence was possible under the fact,
then the jury should be instructed
to find verdict of not guilty. ="
"1he law as applied in this par
ticular case under the indictment
Is that these defendants had a right,
insofar As their sales were con-
cerned, to agree upon price and
fix a price and to sell at that price,
and they also had a right to refuse
to sell to any one they saw fit. And
the court Is Of the opinion, clearly
of the opinion, that the testimony
in the case is consistent, entirely
consistent with the lawfulness Of
the defendants conduct and,
therefore, the court is compelled to
instruct you to find a verdict Of not
guilty as to all of the defendants on
each count of the indictment"
Tried New Trail.
The case involved patent rights
and the right to resell under licenses
and it was the effort of the Justice
Department to blaze a new trail by
the use Of criminal indictments.
Originally the criminal sections of
the law were intended to be applied
to those who could not be effectively
reached by civil injunction suits and
only as a last resort in dealing with
constant offenders. But the JUS