Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/488

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT judicial construction. Perhaps the only limi tation which has been held to be implied is that a combination to fix the prices of patented articles and the terms of use is held not to be illegal. The Northern Securities case seems to defeat the rule of the common law that a person selling a business could lawfully not contract that he would not engage in com petition with the vender, at least so far as concerns a sale by a corporation or to a cor poration formed for the purpose of acquiring the stock of other corporations. Thus the act has been extended to prohibit contracts not within the mischiefs at which its framers aimed. Probably its application to trade unions was not intended. A bill introduced in the House of Representatives in March proposes to amend the Sherman Act by authorizing all corporations except common carriers to register with the commissioner of corporations a copy of every ' ' contract or com bination hereafter made other than a contract or combination with a common carrier." The commissioner with the concurrence of the secretary of commerce and labor may "enter an order declaring that in his judgment such contract or combination is in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations." If no such order is made the contract is valid "unless the same be in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations." A common carrier may similarly file with the Interstate Commerce Commission a copy of a contract or combination hereafter made. This may be in the same way declared to be in unreason able restraint; if it is not so declared no suit by the United States will lie unless the con tfact be unreasonable restraint of interstate or foreign trade. This is a novel proposition, in effect authorizing an officer of the federal government to license a contract in reasonable restraint of trade, notwithstanding that such contract is prohibited unless licensed. Mr. Wheeler questions whether it would not be better to define in the act the contracts deemed in reasonable restraint and to authorize those in express terms, and whether the act does not impose on the officers of the government a burden greater than is defensible upon any theory of wise legislation.

375

The bill proposes to take away the right to treble damages; for this change he sees no good reason. A wiser change wrould be to give the jury a right to find a verdict for exemplary damages in cases of a willful violation of the act and a willful tort. The constitutionality of the proposed act has been assailed on the ground that Congress has no right to delegate its power in the premises, but it seems to Mr. Wheeler to be merely a case of intrusting to officers of the government power to make regulations for the enforcement or application of general rules prescribed by statute. UNIFORMITY OF LAW (United States). "Uniformity of Law in the Several States as an American Ideal. IV. — State Courts vs. Federal Courts," by William Schofield, Harvard Law Review (V. xxi, p. 583). This concluding section of Judge Schofield's article points out that the federal courts have great influence in securing uniformity of law and the amount of business in the federal courts is increasing. "In the competition, so to speak, between the state courts and the federal courts, it is of the utmost importance that the efficiency of the judiciary of the states should be main tained. If diversities in the laws of the states continue to increase, increasing dissatisfaction of the community may cause all persons who are interested in uniformity of law to unite in a general movement to extend the federal jurisdiction in the sphere of private law. If Congress should make the jurisdiction of the federal courts exclusive in every case to which the judicial power of the United States extends, the volume of business in the state courts would be diminished. "There is a strong tendency at the present time to extend the legislative power of the national legislature, especially in the regulation of interstate commerce. It is quite probable that in the future Congress will exercise control under the Constitution over subjects which have hitherto been left to the legislative action of the states. That tendency is increased by the unfortunate belief which is widespread among the people that state legislatures have not legislated with wisdom and fidelity to the public interests. The existence of this belief is proved convincingly by the many provisions of modern state constitutions manifestly