Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/506

 The Green Bag

470

subsidiary seven, as many as ten out of the

rone to have either an aristocratic or democratic

ﬁfteen! . . ." “In any case, I do not think the subject has been considered with suﬁicient fullness to war rant this country joining in any scheme of such a revolutionary character as that involved in the creation of an International Prize Court. That the Convention can be determined at the end of twelve years (Article 55) is not an argu ment in favor of an experiment which might oblige Great Britain to play an invidious and unpopular part among her fellow nations. “It is true that the preamble to the Declara tion refers to Article 7 of The Hague Convention for the establishment of an international Prize Court, but it does not seem to me that ratiﬁca tion of the Declaration necessarily implies ratiﬁcation of The Hague Convention. The ratiﬁcation of the Declaration might, therefore,

bias, of which they are unconscious, and that the President, himself possibl biased, might un consciously select judges 0 plutocratic leanings,

precede the ratiﬁcation of the Convention. the

ratiﬁcation of the Convention being specially reserved until further consideration. ’ “The Declaration of London." By R. A. Pat terson. Contemporary Review, v. 100, p. 77 (July). “Should the other Powers decline either to alter the wording of the Declaration, especially on the point of conditional contraband, or to come to an agreement clearing up doubtful points, it would seem as if they construe its pro visions in a manner less favorable to this coun try than is claimed by those supporting ratiﬁca tion. If this be correct we should surely be unwise to tie our hands, and lose our independent

position by ratifying the Declaration of London in its present form.’ Medical Jurispruder’tce. See Criminology. Monopolies. “The Supreme Court Decisions." Symposium of articles by Judge Peter S. Gross cup of the United States Circuit Court of Ap peals, William Jennings Bryan, and four promi nent New York lawyers, John Larkin, Frederic

R. Coudert, James M. Beck and Samuel Unter myer. North American Review, v. 194, p. 1

(J111)’) Iudge Grosscup, writing of “The Judgment," says that the Court, in turning upon itself, repealed an interpretation that had previously made the Sherman Act "a wholly misconceived and misdirected public experiment." Till these decisions, every one except the “law” had recog

nized the fact that the economic current had changed, and business had come

through combinations.

to

operate

Now the Court recog

nizes this fact, says Judge Grosscup.

The

Standard Oil decision is “a turning event in the life of the nation.” From the standpoint of the business man the act as now construed is still not deﬁnite, but he is subjected to no greater

hardship, in having to determine what restraint of trade may be unreasonable, than in being held by the law to other liabilities, such as those of “reasonable care" with regard to the safety of others, or what is called fraud or fair dealing in one's business relations. Mr. Bryan, discussing “The Reason,’ makes

the characteristic assumption that judges are

and in this way the practical unanimity of the opinions in the two great cases would be accounted for. On the other hand, “if it ‘just happened’ that in the selection of eight judges all should take the view of Justice White, and if it is not accounted for by bias on great subjects, then it shows what a lottery is conducted at the White House when the President blindfolds himself and picks judges at random, only to ﬁnd that all the prizes have gone to those who do not fear ‘reasonable’ trusts and none to those who oppose all restraint of trade." Which seems to us to show a little cloudiness of reasoning, for if the views of the judges are not accounted for by bias the President must have succeeded in obtaining impartial judges whose agreement ' on any question cannot be the result of mere chance. Mr. Bryan also takes the untenable position that the decisions are judicial legisla tion in a sense repugnant to our institutions, a view which if camed to a logical extreme would make Congress the legal sovereign, as Parlia ment is the legal sovereign of England. Mr. Larkin, writing of "The Effect,” says that

the decisions "should satisfy every citizen because the object of the act has been attained. Danger to the country comes only with corporations of giant size whose power and wealth when com bined with others make them no mean rival to the power of the country. To restrain such power and keep it within bounds was the real purpose of the Anti-trust Act. The phraseology of the act was but a means to this end and this end has now been brought to pass." Mr. Coudert, taking for his subject “The Record," luminously traces the history of the law of monopoly, and his article is scholarly and valuable. He thinks that “the emphasis placed upon the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘the light of reason’ by the Court in the Standard Oil case was perhaps unfortunate. It is quite probable that for the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ with regard to restraints of trade the words ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ restraints could be advantageously substituted. This would put the test of validity in a clearer, less subjective and metaphysical light and distinguish between combinations which have for their primary pur pose restraint of trade and those contracts which may incidentally restrain trade, but whose main object is the sale of a business. . . . “From the analysis already made it seems to us that the language of the statute and the re sults of all the decisions as to the Anti-trust Act bear out the view that all (ontracts and combina

tions which directly tend to restrain trade are unlawful, and that all attempts to monopolize,

brought about by whatever methods, whether old or new, are equally within the statute. . . . “The warfare against modern monopoly is being carried on with the rusty weapons of mediaeval England, and any confusing economic result should not be attributed to our courts. . . . The Sherman Law, if construed absolutely and

literally, according to the most approved Chinese method, would result in complete economic