Barre evening telegram. (Barre, Vt.) 1898-19??, 1902-10-15
Attorney General Declares Congress
Has Power to Remedy Them.
SHERMAN LAW LIMITATIONS
speaker Points Out Where Antitrust
Measure Falls short of Purposes
For Which II Was Passed
and Suggests Amendments.

! ne conspicuous lONlcuS FEATURES VI
trusts existent and possible are these:
DISQUALIFICATION, lack of publicity Of
operation, discrimination in prices to de-
Etroy competition, Insufficient personal re-
sponsbility of officers and directors for
corporate management, tendency to mo-
nopoly and lack of appreciation in their
management OF their relations to the peo-
pie for whose benefit they are permitted
to exist.
OVercapitaliZation is the chief Of these
and the source from which the minor ones
flow. 1t is the possibility OF oVercaptal-
ization that furnishes the temptations and
opportunities for most of the others.
DISQUALIFICATION does not mean large
capitalization or capitalization adequate
for the greatest undertakings. 1t is the
imposition upon an undertaking of liza
blity without a corresponding asset to
represent ii. Therefore overcapitalization
is a fraud upon those who contribute the
real capital either originally or by pur-
chase. and the efforts to realize dividends
thereon from operations is a fraudulent
imposition of burden upon the public,
When a property worth a million dollars
upon all the sober tests of value is capt.
taliZed at five millions and sold to the
public, 1t is rational to assume that its
purchasers will exert every effort to keep
its earnings up to the basis of their capt.
taliza ton. When the inevitable depres-
sion comes, wages must be reduced, prices
enhanced or dividends foregone. AS prices
are naturally not increased, but lowered,
in dull periods, it usually resolves itself
into a quo.1on of wages or dividends.
While this condition may exist under
any circumstances it is exaggerated by
overci .talza ton in the illustrating case
five to one The overcapitalized securities
enter into the general budget of the coun-
try. are bought and sold. rise and fail
l,pt
and are more sensitive in proportion as
they are further removed from intrinsic
values.
Corporations and joint stock or other
associations depending upon any statu-
tory law for their existence or privileges
trading beyond their own states, should
be Aured to do business in every state
and locality upon precisely the same
terms and conditions. There should be
no discrimination in prices. no preferences
In service. Such corporations serving the
public as carriers ana in sin.ilar capacities
should be compelled to keep the avenues
of commerce free and open to all upon
the same terms and to observe the law
as to its iniunctions against sitting COM
petition. Moreover, corporations upon
which the people depend for the necessa-
rieS of life should be required to conduct
their business so AS regularly and reason.
ably to supply the public needs.
They should be subject to visitcrial SUI
perVision, and fun and accurate informa-
ton as to their operations should be made
regularly at reasonable Intervals Sc
crecN in the conduct and results of opera
ton is unfair to the nonmanagng stock
holders and should, as well fer reasons of
state, be prohibited by law
If these serious evils We're ofadica led
and q higher measure of administrative
responsibility required in corporate Off
CT rn,l1S hn to ,1,, .,-I
allaying the reasonable apprehension that
the unchecked aggression of the trusts
will result in practical monopoly OF the
important business of the country.
The Remedy Suggested.
The attorney general then cited in
stances showing the scope of the pres
ent antitrust law and its inability to
reach all offenders. He continued:
want to call your attention to this law
not in a spirit of criticism hut TO show
YOU clearly how far it went and where ii
stopped. 1t undertook to invaldate all
attempts TO monopoiize interstate com
merce. which includes, among other things
mentioned transportation. hut II did non
hVa lidate menopolleS OF production or reg
ulate commerce in such way to free
it from the restraints such monopolies in
directly impose. The court did not say
mat tn6Sc 1HulTeCt SutCtS upon Interstate
commerce could not be prevented by con.
gress. II is earnestly contcnded by many
that as il stands this law expresses the
limit of federal power in that direction But
has net congress the power by its resuia-
ton 10 protcct commerce between the states
from being restrained by state corpora
tons and combinations engaged in inter-
state trade when their purpose or effect
is to destroy the freedom of such inter
state trade and when their operations arr
besides injurious to the general public?
Regulation under such power would
not interfere with mere production on
the power of the state over production. II
would only affect them remotely and in
cidentally. just AS moNopoly that pro
duces all or most Of certain line Of
goods affects commerce indirectly
# ii he true that a state can authorizf
or permit a monopoly of production with
in ITS borders because IT mas the power
over production a. such, although it ndi-
rectly affects interstate commerce may
not the United States regulate interstate
commerce over which il has exclusive
control even though il indirectly affects
production. over which, az SUCH 1t has nc
control?
If congress under its power to regulate
interstate commerce may utterly destroy
q continuation ana forfeit its property in
interstate transit as the sherman act
merce IT seems reasonable to say that it
can in the exercise Of the same power
deny to a combination whose life it can
not reach the privilege of engaging in
Interstate commerce except upon such
terms as congress may prescribe to pro
fect that commerce from restraint. Such
regulation would operate directly upon
commerce and only indirectly upon the
irstrume nj alities and operations of pro-
duction.
Il the Sherman act eXhausts the power
eff congress over monopolies. tSle Ameri-
can people find themselves hopelessly
im1ctent facing a situation fraught with
the most alarming possibilities. with which
neither the federal nor state governments
can deal.
Conceting that the present law is not
effective throughout the situation, we
come to the final alternative: May not
congress nnder the existing constitutional
grants, amend and extend the law and
thus remedy its defects and so effectively
regulate national and foreign commerce
as to prevent the sitting of competition,
the regulating of output and price and
the restraining of national and interna-
tional trade? ! do not scruple to say that
in my Judgment the more,a thoughtful