The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-08-14

ANTITRUST LAWS.
Some very erroneous views are being
put forth relative to the legal status of the
so-called trusts ana their liability to attack
by legal methods. The term trust is here
used in its popular and not i'm it's technical
sense, because as a matter of fact not one
of the large combinations of. capital now
doing business is organized as a trust. They
are all corporations, and have the same
rights as any other corporation and are
subject to the same restrictions and none
other. These restrictions may be common
law or Statutory, but whatever they are
they apply to all corporations alike. In the
eye of the law and as a matter of principle
large corporations are just as legitimate
as small ones, and they may be as bene-
fetal and necessary TO the ends OF COM
merce. To prevent or restrain all combina-
tons and consultations of capital and
skill would be the greatest business folly
in the worlds history. The large ones can
not be abolished or prevented without Grip
ping the small ones. The problem is how
TO retain the advantages of corporations.
b oHN ~ AntiA
power for evil.
or the erroneous views that are being
promulgated on the subject some are the
result of ignorance and others of a desire
to make political capital. The assumption
that there is plenty of law either national
or State for the abolition of these large
corporations, and that they can easily be
reached nv IaaaI -
ance of the situation. Good lawyers know
better. The constitutional limitations of
the power of Congress i'm dealing with
trusts and the restrictions upon the power
of the States to interfere with Interstate
make "A very complicated situa-
forbid combinations of manufacturers. even
If monopolies, and can regulate only inter
state The States, on the other
hand. cannot prevent foreign corporations
from sending their goods within their bor-
ders and selling them there. although they
can forbid unreasonable restraints of COM
petition and can impose conditions upon
foreign corporations that seek 10 locate
within their limits. The States would never
consent that Congress should interfere with
the operations of corporations chartered by
them further than TO regulate interstate
commerce and, on the other hand, to give
the State any authority whatever over in
t~erstate m would be paraIyzing to
business and destructive of the Union. The
problem Of dealing with the question is.
therefore, not as simple as some bumptious
labor leaders and able editors seem to
think. After repeated efforts and failures
To enforce the national antitrust law Presi-
dent Cleveland said In his last annual mes
sage. of Dec. :, 1896:
Though Congress has attempted TO deal
with this matter by legislation, the laws
passed for that purpose thus far have
proved Ineffective, not because of any lack
of disposition or attempt to enforce them.
but simply because the laws themselves
as interpreted by the courts do not reach
the difficulty. III the insuficiencies of exist
ing laws can be remedied by further legis-
lation is should be done. The fact must be
recognized. however. that all federal leg
islation on this subject may fall short of
its purpose because of inherent obstacles
and also because of the complex character
of our governmental system. which. while
making the federal authority supreme
within its sphere. has carefully limited
that sphere by metes and bounds thar can
not be transgressed. The decision OF our
highest court on this precise question rem
ders il quite doubtful whether the evils of
trusts and m~onopolies can be ADEQUATELY
treated through federal action unless they
seek directly and purpOsely to include In
their objects transportation or intercourse
between States or between the United
states and foreign countries.
This statement fairly expresses the best
legal opinion of the country to-day. and
there is no reason To believe that future
attempts to enforce the present antitrust
law of Congress will result differently from
those of the past.
As for State legislation. nearly every
State has a law on the subject. but most
Of them add nothing TO the common law
against restriction of trade. IT has beer
the common law FOR hundreds of years tina
contracts and agreements i'm restraint oil
trade are void on grounds of public policy
and The antitrust laws Of different States
simply reassert this principle with an ex.
cess of verblage. The decision OF the Su
preme Court OF this State IN the Portland
gas case was made under common. no
statutory law. There is no law in this Stat,
to prevent any foreign corporation from
entering the State and doing business Il
n complies with the law relative 10 tlint
statement with the auditor of state and
certified copy OF its articles or association
with the secretary of state. II the organi
zation OF the foreign corporation Is lega
on It's face the State officers have no dis
erection but TO admit and authorize IL 10 IL
business In the State. The law i peremp
tory I'm this regard. They cannot raise
! QUESTION as 70 whether ii = %rt:nsi OF 10;