The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1911. THE WAR ON THE TRUSTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1273, 31 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1911. THE WAR ON THE TRUSTS.

& Yesterday's cablc message reporting the movement of the American aovernment against the Steel Trust, ind the consequent disturbance of ihe steel shares market, is supplemented to-day by a brief message reporting a pronouncement by Mr. I'aft of the Government's earnest intentions in regard to Trusts generally. When the Supreme Court issued its judgments against the Standard Oil Company and the Tobacco Trust, it will be remembered, the clearness and decisiveness of its judgments appeared to be marred by the use of the doctrine that illegality depended upon unreasonable restraint of trade, and not restraint of trade without qualification. This feature of the judgments was hailed by the Trust interests as a loophole through which escape might be possible, and was condemned in some quarters as the usurpation by the Court of the functions of Congress. A few sane heads, remembering that the Court had at any rate 'condemned the two big Trusts, realised that the Court had neither usurped the function of the Legislature (by virtually adding the word "reasonable" to a phrase in an Act) nor given any lease of lifo to Trust illegalities and the correctness of this view was made clear in an even more than usually lucid speech by Mi:. Tai't in Detroit last month. "He pointed out that when in 1890 it passed the measure against combinations in restraint _ of trade Congress "was dealing with a subject matter in respect to which it may be assumed that the legislators themselves were not clear as to the exact limitation of the meaning of •the words in the statute they were passing. They, knew there was an

vil which tliey hoped to restrain, md they relied upon the Courts in heir construction of the law to ledge about its operation such retriction as would prevent the fcatute from being so wide in its apdication as to involve absurdity and he impracticable." This was exactly what the Court lid in the two big cases. Me. Taft isked Mk. Bryan or any of the ithcr publicists wlio had been comilaining that in laying down the 'rule of reason" the Court had masculated the law to say what particular restraint of trade he would wndemn which would not be condemned within the Court's definiion. Literally read, the Act would lonouncc a great many minor or inidental restraints of trade, which rould make the statute ridiculous. Phe enemies of the Act have long cnloavoured to urge that strictly intcrireted it would prevent two persons ioing a wagon-express business .cross a State line from entering nto partnership. But to insist on ■his is to miss the whole purport md intention of the Act. Mk. Taft [noted the ease of a man who owned omc steamboats and did an interstate business on the Ohio River. He old out, stipulating in the sale that le would not engage in that busiicss between the same points for a !(!rtain_ number of years. Proeeccl:d against for a breach of the Act, is having acted in restraint of rade, he was acquitted, the Court, '.olding that the restraint was nerely incidental to the sale of the joodwill. "In other words, the Sll- - Court in this case gave a rcaonablc construction to the statute md eliminated from its operation hose harmless useful incidental restraints growing out of lawful conTacts which arc made for an enliraly different purpose from that of lontrolling prices or maintaining a nonopoly by suppressing competiion and which have always been rc:ognised as properly enforeea!)le by Jourts of both law and equity." The lecisions in the Oil and Tobacco •ases, Mit. Taft held, had really vinlicatcd the majesty of the law and it the same time illustrated the vonderful elasticity and adaptabilty of remedy by injunctions in ■quitv. "It needed these two great lecisions to teach the business public .hat at least not in the supreme ribunal of this country would the .'laim bo listened to, that in this day md generation _ we have passed bcrond the possibility of free competition as consistent with proper busiiess growth, or that we have rcachd a time when only regulated nonopoly and the fixing of priccs by ;ovevnmental authority are conistent with future progress." As to the future, Mu. Taft said hat the Court could enforce its lecrees. It was making the Oil and Tobacco Trusts "divide themselves nto actually competing parts under uch provisions in the decrcc that in injunction shall be constantly iperative to prevent by contempt M-oceedings any assumption of the ild relations of a monopoly." The Utorncy-General, he announced, iad instituted investigations into ill the industrial companies suspcetd of infringing the law and he did lot consider that the Act required iiuenclment. The present perturbation of the Steel Trust is evidence of he effect of this speech upon Trust nterests. Mr. Taft is probably irophesying truly when he says that 'the decision of the Supreme Court, is it grows to be understood in the icar future, will be a signal for the ■oluntary breaking up of all comunations in restraint of trade vithin .the inhibition of the statute, ind will lead to a complete revision of feeling on the part of the msiness men of this country and to l clear _ understanding by 'them of he limitations that must be imloscd by them upon any business jombinations made by them in the Aiturc."