The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-11
ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.

ANTITRUST LESISEAIiON.
More thorough investigation OF subjects.
like closer view OF objects, sometimes re-
veals features not apparent before lnVes-
tigation of the trust evil and how to cure it
has shown practical difficulties In the way
of effective legislation on the subject which
are not easy 10 overcome. In the nature OF
things the evil itself is hard one To reach
without interfering with personal rights or
legitimate business. 1t is important, on the
one hand. that the people should be pro-
tected against monopoiies and combinations
I'm restraint OF trade or in the interest of
high prices but the other hand the
rights of individuals, firms and corporations
TO prosecute trade by legitimate methods
must not be infringed. Ii Is not easy to
draw the line between legitimate and He
Ultimate combinations or to frame a law
that will cover every case of the latter
without including many of the former. The
Lexow committee of New York, after an ex-
haustive investigation of the subject, in
Guiding the examination of the heads of
some OF the largest trusts in the country,
concluded that no further antitrust legis-
lation is needed in that State, that the
present laws on the subject afford lffi-
cient remedy il they are properly enforced.
This conclusion seems to recognize the diff
ficulty of legislating the subject and to
leave the remedy largely in the hands of
the courts. operating general principles.
During the past winter the legislatures of
several States have had antitrust bills be-
fore them. and In Georgia and this State
they were enacted into law. Ii remains
to be seen how effective they will be. or
whether they will mitigate the trust evil
without interfering with legitimate bust
ness. The main features of the Indiana
law are as follows:
That all arrangements, contracts, agree
mentS, trusts or combinations between per-
sons or corpora tiOns, who controi the out
put OF any article OF merchandise, mace
with view TO lessen or winch tends To
lessen full. free competition III the impor-
tation or sale OF articles imported into TINS
State, and all arrangements, contracts.
agreements, trusts or combinations between
persons who control the output OF said
articles of merchandise TO control the cost
OF such articles to the producer, shall be
unlawful and void. A violation of the act
by corporation shall operate a for
felture OF its charter and right to do bust
ness. And the persons VINO, either Tor
themselves or as agents OF any Otner per-
son or corporation. violate the act may be
punished by fine of from 800 10 $500, and
Imprisonment i'm the penitentiary from one
TO ten years. Persons damaged by such "a
combination may sue for ana recover from
the members of the trust the full considera-
ton which he paid for the goods which he
purchased.
The law seems to be defective. first in
that no provision is made for enforcing the
| criminal part of it. A penalty Of fine and
Imprisonment is imposed for violation of
the law. but 1t Is not made the duty of the
attorney general or prosecuting attorneys
10 see that il is enforced, and they are not
offered any inducement to do so. Then the
law does not apply to trusts or combina-
tons formed to control articles produced
in this State. BY its terms it applies only
TO combinations or agreements to lessen
free competition i'm the importation or sale
of articles imported into this State" or to
control the cost OF such articles to the pro-
Queer. Under this provision a trust formed
within the State to control the price OF any
Indiana product would not be within the
law. Finally. the law only prohibits trusts
and combinations between persons or cor
porations who control the output of any
article of merchandise" a coach and four
could be driven through that opening First.
it permits among wholesalers or jobbers
any kind of combination to restrict trade
or maintain prices short of controlling the
entire output of the article. The combina-
ton might control all of any product sold
within the State, but unless it controlled
the entire output II would not come under
the law. Careful reading of the law will
show that If the words who control the
output OF any article of merchandise" and
the other clause. who control the import
OF said articles of merchandise" were
stricken out the meaning of the section
would be clear and it would be consistent
with itself. The insertion of these words.
evidently done with purpose to cover a
particular point, unhinges the section and
goes far towards emascuating the law. II
is doubtful If the new law will add any
thing TO the old common-law remed>
against contracts in restraint of trade