The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-18
Professor jerks idea,

The weight OF authoritative opinion, is
coming to hold that congress has all the
power needed for regulation of the trusts
without recourse to the tedious and un-
certain process Of constitutional amend
ment. Influenced doubtless by Attorney
General Knox, the president who not
longer ago than last summer did not have
much confidence in legislation without in
creased constitutional authority. seems
now to be Of the opinion that congress
has not by any means exhausted it's con-
stitutonal rights in dealing with the
problem.
. In a careful article in the Outlook Pro-
lessor jeremiah W. jerks takes the
ground that the constitutional question
has been eliminated and that the only
question now Is, What action by congress
will be wisest? Three general courses Of
legislation have been recommended by au-
thorities on the trust question::
Attorney General Knox seems to favor
an extension Of the scope of the Sherman
antitrust act.
The United States Industrial commits
sion recommends the imposition Of a tax
upon corporations or individuals engaged
In an Interstate business, and thereby Sc
curing a supervisory control Of such bust
ness. t."
The plan advocated by James B. Dill
and others of requiring the federal incor-
poratton of corporations doing an Inter
state business 80. l.:
81 Professor jerks seems Inclined to favor
legislation which will put the big corpor-
atoms called trusts as well AS others do
ing an interstate business under the CON
troll Of the federal government, without
imposing very mary definite restrictions
at first. He considers this proceeding
:. with wise caution, because it Is so diff
cult to foretell how near any, law will
come to- working the results expected OF
z. it, Human experience is full of proofs
that laws often strengthen a tendency OF
practice they" are intended to check or
= abolish. Take. the matter Of local or class
discrimination in prices which is favor
lite means Of running a small competitor
There has been a general agreement III
trust discussion that the practice Should
be abolished, yet Professor jerks raises
question whether it might not in some
cases injure a small business to enac,
such a law: He illustrates his question
with the following hypothetical case:
A small Touring mill in southern New
York sells flour. let US say. in it's owr
town, ir Oswego and Elmira. N. Y, II
Wilkesbarre and Scranton, Pa and il
.Phillipsburg and Dover. n. J. 1t is en-.
gagged In interstate commerce. 1t mus
sell in face Of the competition of the grea
Minneapolis mills and of the so-callet
-four trust. Freight rates from Minneap
oils are substantially the same to all thes,
points;f in them all -four of the same brant
sells at practically the same price. The
local New York miller must meet thes,
prices, freights included. In consequence
az his freights differ. he sells to eacl
town at a different rate. His profits from
each differ. He does not sell to all at TIN
same rate and then add the freight. a.
does his great rival. If the law Of no dis
elimination is enforced on him in tn
same way as on the trust-and the Law
cannot be q respecter of persons-he i
confined to his local New York market
cannot sell enough to keep his: mill run
ming and stops. The act Indicated, rigid
~ enforced would close hundreds of SINAI
mills in all sections of the country, All
would stop thousands Of men in othe
lines. Yet possibly his may be less ev
than Determinations. Of the trusts. (
But the more difficulties that can b
pointed out, the more urgent is the initia