New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-02
SENATOR FORAKER'S BILL
EXPLAINED BY AUTHOR.
Not Meant TO Change Intent ot
Anti-Trust Las. He Says.
[rRoN THE rnrnrNe nrRzAr.I

washington. Feb. l.-The attention artrdCteI
by Senator Forakers BILL Senate No. 3.937. -
the occasion of considerable surprise. to no ons
more than TO the author Of the measure. who
describes it as merely amendment 20 tbs
antitrust law. intended to define more clearly
but in way 10 change the intent OF that
statute The bill is one Of nearly four thousand
introduced in the Senate this session and has
never received consideration by any committees.
Aside from the title and enacting clause it's fun
text - follows;
That nothing in the act to regulate commerce.
approved February A. 1887. or in the act to pro-
teCt foreign trade and commerce against
lawful restraints and rn0nopolies approved
July >. 1890. or in any act amendatOry Of either
Of said acts, shall hereafter apply foreign
commerce or shall prohibit any act or anv con-
tract in restraint OF trade or commerce arncng
the several States, provided that such restraint
be reasonable. or shall hereafter authorizs I'M
ment for any violation Of said acts except for
perjury or contempt Of court.
That this measure. which Is not likely 70 oe
pressed this session, which is more than
likely to be amended and which may be en-
tireIy remodeled before passing either house.
should be seized by the Democratic press as a
pretext for partisan misrepresentation is noe
regarded by the Republican leaders as surpris-
ing. although It is an indisputabls fact that
neither the President nor any Official Of ths
administration had any knowIedss OF it n ad-
vance Of its introduction
Mr. FoRAKER's EXPLANATION.
Speaking of the msasurs to-day. Senator
Foraker said that he drafted II about a ysar
ago. but did not Introduce &c because ths
Northern Securities case was brought and hs
deemed ID wiser to wait until decision n thas
SUIT had been reached. Believing now that the
Supreme Court had arrived decision. hs
drew from the pigeOnhole. where It had lons
slumbered. the inoHensivs little measure and fn-
trOdtICel II IN wit c0raIffrx
one. but with the belief that 1t so clearly fol-
| lowed the view expressed by the Attorney Gen.
eral in his now famous Pittsburs speech tnas
| 1t would commend itself to that Official
Discussing the provisions OF the measure fof
| The Tribune. Senator Foraker said:
Senate Bill No. 3.937 Is intended to amend the
interstate Commerce law. and the sherman anti
| trust law. The antitrust law as IL now stands.
| has been construed by the Supreme Court 10
pronioit contracts that are in reasonable as wel
/ as those which IN unreasonable restraint oc
/ trade In this respect it differs from the COM
/ mon law rule. which has obtained for centuries
/ In England. and which adopted and en-
/ forced in this country until the enactment OF this
| antitrust law, in 1890.
| It has been said by those who framed the
| statute and secured its enactment-nOtably. by
/ senator Hoar. who claims that he framed ths
/ bill as it was passed-that IL was not intended
10 change the common law rule; that the COM
| mittee expected the Supreme Court to hold thas
/ by unlawful restraint was meant. at common
law and always heretofore in this country.
unreasonable restraint. Mr.. Knox. the Attorney.
General discussed this proposition In his speech
| az PittsbUrg before the Chamber Of Commeres
/ law which this bill proposes
1 have not the time. ard do not suppose It ia
desirable. that I should undertake to discuss
the reasons why this change in the law should
be made
ABOLIsHES IMPRISONMENT
second-The bill further provides that tho
| penalties OF imprisonment prescribed by tho
antitrust law shall be abolished. or this feat
/ ure Of the law it can be said they have never
/ been operative. I DO not know of an instance
\ where anybody has undertaken 90 impose i'm
\ prisOnment for the violation OF the law. II is
simply drastic provision that is a dead letter.
/ The effective part OF the law in restraining
| trust combinations has been that which allows
/ the government to invoke the equity turisdic-
| tion OF the courts. All the proceedings so far
| had that have resulted IN the breaking up OK
trusts or in the ACCOMPLISHING Of anything have
been in the exercise OF that power.
AS 70 the forfeiture clause. that Is IN It's
nature an injustice If put IN operation, since tr
would work unequal punishmentS. The
who would violate the law with respect to n
same by forfeiture would thus be punished to-
the extent Of very small sum OF money;
while the m2n VINO for me same oIIence lost
q tray Of diamonds would be punished many
times-perh9ps hundreds OF time-more. It is
the injustice OF that feature OF the law that viii
be remedied if the amendment prevails.
MAY RESULT IN SOME CHANGE OF LAWS.
The opinion prevails at the Capitol that tbs
Foraker amendment will lead 70 considerable
discussion. out of which viii come some judi
cious amendment to the present law. although
it is not believed that any change OF the statuta
will occur at this session OF Congress- II IS.
moreover. the opinion of certain well posted Re-
publlCans that before the Foraker bill gets
through committee it VIII be shOrn OF tho
second clause. which 5 regarded OF little i'm
pOrtanCe. for the very reason cited By the Sem
atOr. that the criminal provision never has been,
and is not likely to be. invoked in any antitrust
proceeding.
1t will be remembered that when the Elklus
bill under consideration last year the Inter-
state Commerce Commission recommended that
the Imprisonment provided penalty for viO-
latiOns Of the Interstate Commerce act be re-
pealed. explaining that the severity Of the pun
ishment made II impossible 10 secure evidences
OF violations of the law. Congress so amended
the Elkins bin To make this change In thu
Interstate Commerce law. It is now said tha.
the same argument holds good. al least TO a.
considerable extent. with regard TO the anti
trust law.