The Green Bag
42
been held unconstitutional in the Employers‘ Liability cases, 207 U. S. 463, was held valid so far as it relates to common carriers en gag'ed in business in the territories and in the District
of
Columbia.
(Reported in
215
U. S. 87, 54 L. ed. .) To quote from the opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Day:—— "It is the duty of the court, where it can do so without doing violence to the terms of an act, to construe it so as to maintain its constitutionality; and, whenever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconsti tutional, it is the duty of this court to so declare and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid. It was held in the Employers’ Liability cases that in order to sustain the act it would be necessary to write into its provisions words which it did not contain. “Coming to consider the statute in the light of the accepted rules of construction, we are of opinion that the provisions with
the various states on the point now presented, but a careful examinatoin of the cases shows that the great Weight of authority is in favor of the position that the original contract can not be impaired." In Wright v. Knights of Maccabees, decided in the same Court on the same date (N. Y. Law jour. Dec. 8), it was held :—
"Benefits cannot be reduced or new con ditions forfeiting the benefits added by an amendment of the by-laws, even when the general right to amend is expressly reserv ." gmonoponu. “Standard Oil Decision"-— Sherman Anti-Trust Act Construed—Power to Prevent Competition, A part from Exercise of Such Power, can Bring Combination under Ban of the Law—Congrcss can Regulate All Instrumentalities Tending to Produce Re straint of Interstate Trade—Restraint of Trade Illegal only when Direct and Sub stantial—P0wer to Restrain Trade Directly Equivalent to Actual Restraint-Attempts t0 Monopolize Part of a Trade,
reference to interstate commerce, which were
declared unconstitutional for the reasons stated, are entirely separable from and in nowise dependent upon the provisions of the act regulating commerce within the Dis trict of Columbia and the Territories. We reach the conclusion that in the aspect of the act now under consideration the Con gress proceeded within its constitutional power, and with the intention to regulate the matter in the District and Territories irrespective of the interstate commerce fea
Prohibited by
Sherman Act, do not Include Such Attempts Made byLegitimate Means. U. S. The United States Circuit Court for the eastern
district
of Missouri (Sanborn, Van
Devanter, Hook and Adams, J. J.) in U. S. v. Standard Oil Co., decided Nov. 20, granted a decree for the petitioner, holding a com bination such as that effected by single owner ship of stock in the oil industry illegal under the provisions of the Sherman Act (reported 173 Fed. Rep. 177, also in Chicago Legal News, Nov. 27; National Corp. Rep. Dec. 2).
ture of the act." The facts are familiar, and only the important
Insurance. Attempted Modification of Orig inal Contract by Amendment of Constitution or By-Laws of Association.—-Illutual Benefit and Fraternal Insurance Societies. N. Y. In Dowdall v. Catholic Mutual Benefit Asso ciation, decided by the New York Court of
parts of Judge Sanborn's opinion dealing with matters of substantive law are here quoted: “Repeated discussion and consideration of the purpose and meaning of this act [the Sherman law] have established, by con trolling authority, beyond debate in this
Appeals Nov. 23 (N. Y. Law jour. Dec. 4),
tribunal, these pertinent rules for its inter
it was held that provision in a certificate of life insurance issued by a mutual benefit asso ciation that it was issued upon the express condition that the insured should “in every particular while a member of said association comply with all the laws, rules and regula tions thereof," will not justify a subsequent amendment by the association of its constitu tion binding upon the insured whereby single assessments are largely increased beyond the rate fixed by his contract of insurance. The Court said:—— "There is a conflict of judicial decisions in
pretation and application to the facts of this ,case. The test of illegality of a contract or combination under this act is its direct and necessary effect upon competition in inter tates or international commerce. If the nec essary effect of a contract, combination or conspiracy is to stifle, or directly and sub stantially to restrict, free competition in com merce among the states or with foreign na tions, it is a contract, combination or con
piracy in restraint of that trade and it vio lates this law. The parties to it are presumed to intend the inevitable result of their acts
