Salt Lake Tribune | 1914-03-06 | Page 6 | Strike a Snag

I STRIKE A SNAG. i: H.;.. Advices from Washington arc that H 1 '; the Sicuatc and house committees may H ''. abandon attempts to define restraints , ' of trade. They probably have discov-H discov-H j t ered that an effective law on this sub-H sub-H .' J .icct ii impossible. Tho measure was H included among the antitrust bills be-Hj be-Hj rausc radicnla throughout Ihc country H I ,' " believed it a monstrous lliiug that tho H J l nit cr 1 Slaics supreme i-uiirt should ap-H': ap-H': vk H "rule of reason" to I hat part H ol thu ui-iginal Irii6t law whiiMi forbids H i , rolnnnt yf Made. They loudly pro-H pro-H tested that thu United Staloa supreme H ,. foiirt had written fometbing into (ho H law and tlml when congross said there H hlinuld bo no restraint' of trade, tho H .; highest tribunal in the hind ought mil. H 1 to permit so railed reasonable re-H re-H ' ; sttaiuts of tnulc. H a. '1'hc Tribune has often pointed out, H- J however, that the supremo cgiirl. wa3 Hi j,! 1 merely following English intjr)rctu- H ; 1 ion uf similar laws. Tho Knglish law Hi.j always permitted reasonable restraint I j vof trade. In fact, to forbid all re- H ; fitrniut of trndo is to commit a. gi- H l ?g.iiitie folly. H j -'j When the present measure was pro- J; posed by 1 tic administration, Tho Trib J ij vuue pointed out tho impossibility of H ; ' Ij delluing unrea&onablu restraints of ! trade. It would merely limit the Shcr-H Shcr-H j..' man law v.-ithout doing any good. The S , supreme court would bo compelled to I i" W: - ,lcrin'' thc definitions. I ' ';! Moreover, any definitions would prac- I . tioall;.- repeat decisions of tho supremo .,.' ! court. In its present form tho Shor- ' 1 :'i 'an law gives tho court an opportuni- j i f' ty to correct any evils in tho way oC H ijj'ii; monopoly or restraint of trade, Tvlicrc- ' ;!'' - s if the court wore circumscribed by ; . definitions it might not be able to ;atamp out abuses with the freedom that I f !. now popscssc?. I i The troul'lc with tho radicals io that j.': they do not trust the supreme court. ' .Ono decision with which they do tint. agroo js sufficieut to make them doubt L not only t.ho integrity but tho intelligence intelli-gence of tho court. The. dispatches state that most of I he now bills must undergo carnfid revision. re-vision. The (ask will he a most difficult diffi-cult one, much morn difficult, in fact than tho task whi''h confronted Senators Sena-tors Sherman, Hoar and Kdmunds when they framed tho Sherman law. It is not. generally known, lint it is a fact thai the Sherman law is based upon statutes framed in England in tho reign of Edward VI and of .'lames I. In the reign of the. latter monarch trusts similar to those of our day cuine into existence and the government was compelled to regulate them. That part of tho Sherman law. which provides triple damages for anyone injured by restraint of trade or moiiopolj is taken word for word from the statuto of James I.