The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-03-16
AN HONE ST OiFFEhENCE.

we iau OCCGSfOH 5csSldA 0tiy . dSO ~
take to task the Norfolk yirginisn-P1lot
for having made the impression upon it's
readers that The Times had censured
President Roosevelt for proceeding against
the Northern Securities Company under
The Sherman antitrust act, when in
point of fact, The Times had attacked the
law and not the President. Our Norfolk
contemporary in fairness reproduces the
explanatory articles from The Times and
adds this comment:
The Virginian-Pilot did not intend to
misstate the position of The Times,
whose views it always respects. wheth-
er or not it agrees with them. So then,
it was against the law and not against
the enforcement of it that The Times
directed its criticism. 1t was the Times
characterization of the proceeding as
absurd that led us to infer that 1t
was criticizing the Acknowledgement
rather than the law. We were the more
surprised because The Times, as it says,
has always stood for the enforcement of
the law.
AS to the Sherman laws merits or de-
merits. that brings up the whole ques-
ton Of whether gigantic consultations
in business are contrary to good public
policy and the best interests of the peo-
pie as a whole. Our Richmond contem-
porary takes the negative of that propos-
ition. We take the affirmative. Time
alore will show which is right.
We are gratifed that the Virginian-
Pilot has thus dealt fairly with Tho
Times, as we were unwilling to believe
that our contemporary. would purposely
place The Times in a false position. In
deed, we are always unwilling to believe
evil OF any person. least of all of the
editor of an honorable Virginia newspa-
per.
The dispute between the Virginian-Pil-
OF and The Times, therefore, is simply
the honest difference Of opinion as to
the merits and practical operation of the
Sherman act. AS the Virginian-Pilot
saws. it takes the affirmative side and
The Times takes the negative. 1t is
now nearly ten years since The Times
first began to discuss this question, and
in the beginning we took the position
that consolidation was the order of the
day; that combination in trade was nee
essary; that combinations which gave
the public better values must. necessar-
lily, be of benefit rather than Of detri-
ment to the general public. We also
principle was once admitted in law 1t
was impracticable, if not impossible, to
discriminate We said that il two or
three or four men could in law combine
and form a corporation we could see no
way in law of preventing two or three
or four corporations from combining and
forming one large corporation. AT that
time the hostility to what is called the
trust was intense-so intense IN the
State of Virginia that our Legislature
would not grant q. charter to the Amer
lean Tobacco Company; and so, in re-
Spouse to this antitrust sentiment, the
Sherman antitrust law was enacted.
But it must be admitted on all hands
that there has been a change in condl-
tons end that there has been a change,
more or less, in public sentiment since
that time. This change in sentiment Is
indicated. if we may be pardoned per-
sonal allusion, in the manifest change OF
sentiment towards The Times. At The
time to which we have just referred and
for a. considerable period thereafter, this
paper. was censured and by some oe-
nounccd as the organ of the trust. NOW,
however, it Is rarely that such COM
nents are made. Thoughtful men have
satisfied themselves that these comblna-
tions are necessary. They nave seen
that the direful predictions which were
made concerning the trust have not
come to pass and they have taken al
together a moro rational view OF the sub
ject than in former days.
This does not mean that corporations
are not to be regulated by law. Cor
porations are the creatures of law, and
in view of the privileges which they re-
ccive and the protection which they re-
ceive from the Government. they are
very proper subjects of regulation. But
the Sherman antitrust law was framed
years ago, under conditions quite differ
ert from those of the present day, ana
we say that it is a menace to the Industry
and general prosperity of this country.
l
That law was intended TO prevent trusts.
hit if it should have the effect to sup
press all combinations now existing,
which are popularity known as trusts, the
virginian-Pilot must admit that it would
cause the most disastrous panic that TINS
country has ever experienced. is there
any man in the land so rash as to urge
that this law be enforced in such way
as to destroy the United States steel
| Corporation, the American Tobacco Com
pany, the virginia-Carclina Chen'lcal
COMPANY and all tho industrial and
railroad combinations that have os2h
| made since tho law went into erect:
| That is the question for each and every
| advocate and defender of the Sherman
antitrust law 10 answer for himself
THE NEW FREE BRIDGE.
Restrictions on traffic are restrictions on