The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-02-02
PRESIDENT FEARS
FORAKERS BILL
Restraint of Trade Measure
Not Wanted Just Now.
ATTORNEY GENERALS VIEWS
Mr.. Knox Announces That the Admins
tration Wants No Change in
the Present Laws.

The Foraker bill to relieve foreign
commerce and acts and contracts in
reasonable restraint of trade from the
provisions of the Sherman law and the
interstate commerce act is being dis
cussed at the White House a good deal
OF late. The President is undoubtedly
, talking over the measure with leaders
Of the Senate and House.
From AL that can be learned. how
ever. he does not approve of the meas
ure, and he especially thinks considera-
ton OF it aJnhis time would be wrong.
No doubt is entertained that the Adj
ministration leaders in the Senate Will
yield to the wishes of the President. and
endeavor TO sidetrack the bill.
Aside from other evidence on this
point, the statement OF Attorney Gen
eral Knox that the measure was intro
duced without the approval of the Ad-
ministraticn and that the bill is I'M
wise is conclusive.
The Attorney General says there has
} been no intention of amending the laws
in point In support of his views. he re-
fers to a legal opinion given at the re-
quest of President Roosevelt fully a
year ago.
Power to Restrain.
! a point OF. .SSpeGldl interest 10 WHICH
Attorney General Knox calls attention
I is that the enactment of the Foraker
bin would be a legislative grant OF power
TO restrain CONNIE &c. This is pro-
hibited by the common law. as all re-
straints injuriously affecting the public
welfare are held to be void.
In support of his present position the
Attorney General has called attention
Il to what he said at that time. that an
| attempt was made to attach identically
the same amendment to one of the bills
then pending.
Scope Broad.
Mr.. Knox's views on the present For
aker bill. therefore. are:
THE scope of the proposed amend
ment is so broad that one ought not
TO attempt to define its limits without
long reflection. At first glance, how
ever, it seems to me that it would have
the effect of repeating section 5. OF an
act to regulate commerce. which is
popularity known as the anti-pooling
clause.
THAT section makes It unlawful fol-
railroads TO pool their earnings or divide
| their traffic As such pools were al
ways held TO be violative OF public pol
common law.
But as the states mad commit &c
To Congress alone the regulation OF in
! terstate commerce. the rule OF the com
mon law could not be applied to that
commerce until Congress acted. which
/ II did in the act TO regulate commerce@'
As the anti-poOling law was adopted
| only after years of discussion the At
/ torney General does rot see the advisa-
I bility Of suddenly repeating it, He also
| called attention to the foreign commerce
! features proposed to be altered and
4 again expressed his disapproyal of any
change.
Administration Alarmed.
Agitation of the subject at this time :.
regarded as wrong by many Administ=a-
ton Senators.
They fear Il will cause suspicion
among voters throughout the country
and cloud the situation, to the benefit
only OF the Democrats.
| There was a great deal OF uneasines,
in a similar way last spring. leading vi
to the passage OF the EllSins bill. but tn,
resulting legislation did not Justify tn,
| fears previously expressed.
Should the impression gain ground
under Democratic manipulation tina
1.-THE Foraker bill representa- yielding [,
the trusts. the popular eject would b'
! disastrous. many Administration sup
pOrters think Attorney General Knox
statement, II is believed, will do mucl
to counterfeit this view.