The Savannah morning news., 1903-04-04
GROUP

for quasi public purposes, clothed for
that reason with the ultimate power of
the state to take private property
against the will of the owner, hold
their corporate powers as carriers in
trust for the fairly impartial service of
all the public. Favoritism in the use
of such powers, unjustly enriching
some and unjustly impoverishing 9TH
ers, discriminating in favor of some
places and against others, is palpably
Violative of plain principles of justice.
Such d practice unchecked is hurtful in
many ways. Congress, having had it's
attention drawn to the matter, enacted
most important anti-rebate law,
which greatly strengthens the inter-
state commerce law. This new law
prohibits under adequate penalties the
giving and as well the demanding or
receiving of such preferences, and
provides the preventive remedy of in
junction. The vigorous administration
of this law, and it will be enforced, will,
it is hoped, afford a substantial rem
edy for certain trust evils which have
attracted public attention and have
created public unrest.
The cotton interests of the South, in
Guiding growers, buyers, and shippers,
made complaint that they were suffer-
ing great injury in their business from
lllS lilSlliOQS VI Tie 0OulnSTn Td1lTOdQS
in the handling and transportation of
cotton. They alleged that these rail-
roads, by combined action under a pool
ing arrangement to support their rate
schedules, had denied to the shippers
the right to elect over what roads their
commodities should be shipped, and
that by dividing upon a fixed basis the
cotton crop of the South all inducement
to compete in rates for the transporta-
ton thereof was eliminated. Proceed
ings were instituted by the Attorney
General under the antitrust law, which
resulted in the destruction of the pool
and in restoring to the growers and
shippers of the South the right to ship
their products over any road they
elected, thus removing the restraint
upon the freedom of commerce.
I'm November 1902, the Attorney
General directed that a bill for an
injunction be filed in the United States
Circuit Court at San Francisco against
the Federal Salt Company-a corpora
ton which had been organized under
the laws of an Eastern state, but had
it's main office and principal place of
business in Californa-and against a
number of other companies and per-
sons constituting what was known as
the salt trust. These injunctions were
to restrain the execution of certain
contracts between the Federal Salt
Company and the other defendants by
which the latter agreed neither to i'm
port, buy or sell salt, except from and
to the Federal Salt Company, and not
to engage or assist in the production
of salt west of the Mississippi river
during the continuance of such con-
tracts. AS the result of these agree
ments the price of salt had been ad-
vanced about 400 per cent. A tenn
porary injunction order was obtained,
which the defendants asked the court
to modify on the ground that the anti
trust law had no application to con-
tracts for purchases and sales within
a state. The Circuit Court overruled
this contention and sustained the gov
ernment's position. This practically
concluded the case, and it is under
stood that in consequence the Federal
Salt Company is about to be dissolved
and that no further contest will be
made.
MANY of the alleged remedies advo-
Gated are of the unpleasantly drastic
type which seeks to destroy the disease
by killing the patient. Others are so
obviously futile that it is somewhat
difficult to treat them seriously or as
being advanced in good faith. High
among the latter place the effort to
reach the trust question by means of
the tariff. You can, of course put an
putting an end to the prosperity of the
nation; but the price for such action
seems high. The alternative is to do
exactly what has been done during the
life of the Congress which has just
closed-that is, to endeavor, not to de-
stroy corporations, but to regulate
them with view of doing away with
whatever is of evil in them and of max
ing them subserve the public use. The
law is not to be administered in the
interest of the poor man as SUCH nor
yet in the interest of the rich man as
such, but in the interest of the law
abiding man, rich or poor. We are no
more against organizations of capital
than against organizations of labor.
We welcome both, demanding only that
each shall do right and shall remember
its duty to the republic. Such a course
we consider not merely a benefit to the
poor man. but a benefit to the rich
man. We do no man an injustice when
we require him to obey the law. On
the contrary. if he is a man whose
safety and well-being depend in pc
culiar degree upon the existence of the
spirit of law and order, we are rem
dering him the greatest service when
we require him to be himself an eX-