The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-02-02
ROOT OPPOSED TO
NEW LEGISLATION
Amendments Are Not Approved
by Administration
REPEALS POOLING CLAUSE
Measure introduced In Senate Pro.
poses to Amend Interstate Com
merce and Antitrust Laws
Regarding Foreign Trade.

washington, February l. Attorney
General Knox In answer to inquiries as to
whether the bill recently introduced into
the senate to amend the interstate COM
merce and antitrust laws so as to re-
lieve foreign commerce from their oper-
alton and so as to enable contracts to be
entered into in reasonable restraint of
commerce. was introduced with the
knowledge and approval of the adminis-
tration, replied
Absolutely no."
In response to question as to his views
on the wisdom of such an amendment of
the law, he Replied
Just one year ago 1t was proposed
to offer as an amendment to one of the
pending bills in congress exactly this
same measure. At that time the Presi-
cent required an expression of my views
as to the proposed amendment with the
remarks that its opponents claim that
1t was in harmony with suggestion made
| by me in an address at Pittsburg l then
presented and submitted to the President
an expression of my views. 1 then said
and still think the scope of the proposed
amendment is so broad that one ought
| not to attempt to define its limits with
out long reflection
Would Repeal Anti-Poolinq.
AT first glance, however, 1t seems to
me that it would have the effect of re-
pealing Section o. the act to regulate
commerce, which is popularity known as
the anti-pooling clause. That section
makes it unlawful for railroads to pool
their earnings or divIue their traffic. AS
| such nOOlS WI NV hold
lative of public policy, they were held
to be unlawful at common law.
But as the states had committed to
congress alone the regulation of inter-
state commerce. the rule of the common
law could not be applied to that commerce
until congress acted. which it did in the
act to regulate commerce. That act was
the result of most prolonged agitation,
chiefly In the states lying west Of the
Alleghenes.
THE amendment also proposes to repeal
the interstate commerce law and the anti
trust law, so far as foreign commerce is
concerned. This would result in giving
commerce an advantage over our domes
tic commerce. By means of such a power
the tariff protection would be largely
nullified 1t is well known that the steam
ship companies and railroads have in in
stances combined so that foreign traffic
has been carried from Berlin to Chicago
at rates 60 per cent lower than similar
goods made in this country could be trans
ported from New York to ChicagoI
Tin Is often Favored.
Tin has frequently been carried from
Wales to Chicago at lower rates than the
railroads would carry tin manufactured
in Pittsburg to Chicago. Boots clothing
hardware etc. from Germany have been
carried through to San Francisco at rates
66 per cent lower than was charged by a.
railroad carrier on similar manufactured
goods of our own country from Atlantic
ports to San Francisco.
while 1T may be wise policy to incor-
| porate the rule of reasonableness into the
| regulation by law of contract between in
dividuals and contracts of Industrial cor
porations which are private corporations
that rule has never been applied to what
are known as quasi public corporations
railroads for example, which exercise pub
! lie functions, and enjoy public rights.
They owe duties to the public for the
consideration of their right of public fran
chse among which is the duty to refrain
from restraining competition in rates, SER
vice and facilities.
Relieve Them of Duties to Public.
This amendment would tend to relieve
them from many of their most important
duties to the public. It's enactment in
stead of being a protection to commerce
would be to effect an undoing of very
much of the most important remedial leg
islation of the past fifteen years.
81 stated if the common law were in
corporated into federal statute, the rule
for it's Interpretation would be as laid
down by the supreme court of the United
States, namely: Public welfare is first
considered, and If 1t be not involved and
restraint upon one party is not greater
| than protection to the other party re-
quires, the contract may be sustained
| 1.-THE proposed amendment overlooks the
| fact that the public welfare is involved
in any restraint that public corporations
may impose upon themselves. and there
fore the amendment does not propose to
introduce the rule of the common law
but its enactment would be a legislative
! grant of power to restrain commerce.
prohibited by the common law as all re-
straints which affect the public welfare
| iniuriously are void at common law.
1.-THE above are few objections to the
proposed legislation which Immediately
| e.