The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-08-09
FRIDAY, AUGUST 9. 1907.



Attorney General Bonaparte has again
expressed the opinion that criminal prose
cution would do more good in compelling
corporations 10 obey the law than any
amount of litigation. He announces the
"avowed purpose Of the Department of
Justice 10 prosecute criminaIly any one
who is really responsible for violations
of the antitrust law wherever it can do
so with any reasonable probability of
success" Sending a few prominent men
70 Jail would have a better moral effect.
he thinks, than the prosecution Of corpO-
rations through the long-dTawn-Out and
sometimes Ineffective processes of the
courts. Yet there is another aspect Of the
matter 10 which Mr.. BOnapaTte wisely
calls attention, and that is the possibility
that attempts 10 put trust magnates in Jail
might not result in convictions. He re-
calls a recent case where two corpora
tiOns We're convicted and their presidents
acquitted and remarks that only success
ful prosecutions would have a good eff
feet. The department, therefore, viii not
undertake personal prosecutions unless
there is reasonable hope that convictions
may be mad.
Mr.. Bonaparte's announcement ought to
satisfy, in a measure. the Widespread
popular clamor for the edifying moral
spectacle Of a Rockefeller or a Hartman
behind the bars of some United States
prison. One of the singular consequences
of Judge Lands imposition Of a S29 O0)
fine upon the Standard Oil Company of
Indiana is the accentuation of this clamor
for even the limit of the law in the way
Of financial penalty is thought insufficient
TO command obedience 10 the law on the
part Of the octopus and its myriad
tentacles. Judge Lands would have liked
10 impose a term of Imprisonment upon
somebody in the case before him. but
upon whom? That is the difficult thing TO
determine, because il IS rot so easy TO
fix criminal responsibility for each one Of
the manifold acts and complex operations
Of such an Industrial mechanism as a
corporation, and il is quite conceivable
that in Judge lands own court a jury
might have found the Standard Oil Com
pany Of Indiana guilty Of accepting IL
legal rates, while the same jury might
have been unable to agree upon the guilt
Of any particular officer Of the corpora
ton
Public demand for the infliction Of ex-
IRENE penalties always follows the initial
exposure Of criminal practices. showing
the universal faith in punitive remedies
for human wrOngdoing. But the punish
ment Of crime does not altogether prevent
ii, and the history of punitive legislation
proves that the severest penalties are not
the best adapted TO the suppression of
crime. What reason is there to suppose
that the infiiction of severe punishments
viii do more to curb wrongful practices
than they do 10 suppress murder, or bur
glary, or embezzlement? There is, however.
one important difference, and that is in the
moral effect The men who control In
dustrial combinations are not, In the
ordinary sense of the word, criminals.
They are sensitive to public sentiment
and 10 the good opinion of their neigh
bors and associates, so that adverse YER
diets in the courts, supported by the best
judgment of the country, and not merely
that OF the rabble, cannot fail TO have a
strong influence over their future course
Of action. There is already considerable
evidence that the force of public opinion
alone is bringing about changes in the
conduct Of corporate business which may
be a fair equivalent for the moral effect
of putting somebody in Jail, though the
latter process may serve TO heighten the
pressure OF public opinion.