Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1907-07-26
SAYS SHERMAN LAW
WORKS Injustice
CHARLES G. DAWES POINTS OUT
DEFECTS TO WISCONSIN
BANKERS.
FORBiDS BOTH GOOD
AND BAD COMBINES
Chicagoan Gives Examples of Favor
able Commercial Compacts-Points
Out Two Kinds of Agreements in
Restraint of Trade.

Milwaukee, Wis, July 26.-Special
addresses before the final session OF
the Wisconsin Bankers association
convention were made Thursday by
Charles G. Dawes, of Chicago, who
spoke on "The Defects of the Sherman
Antitrust Law" and by John G. Perrin,
a banker of Indianapolis, Ind, whose
topic was "The Currency" Mr.. Dawes
was introduced by President F. J. Carr
of the association. He said: ''The
Sherman antitrust law makes criminal
all agreements in restraint of trade,
whether they are inherently criminal
or not. 1t makes in these general
terms something criminal without
further definition.
Some Agreements Just.
'Now, this is the day of the trade
agreement in the United States. We
have national city, state and district
agreements in restraint of trade and
they are not agreements for the pur-
pose always of eXtorting an unreason-
able price. l would not for moment
defend an agreement in restraint of
trade which had for its purpose the
extorting from the public of an unrea-
sonable price. 1t should be under the
ban of the law. 1t should be made
criminal, as the Sherman antitrust
law makes it criminal.
But the trouble with the Sherman
antitrust law is that it makes equally
criminal an agreement in restraint of
trade which is inherently innocent,
which may be for the benefit of the
public, which may be simply for the
purpose of preserving natural rights,
which may be at any rate not injurious
to the public.
Works Benefit to Public.
Take, for instance, an agreement
among competitors to compete only
upon pure goods, as distinguished from
adulterated goods, unquestionably in
the interest of the public, and yet it is
criminal under the Sherman antitrust
law to-day. as criminal as an agree
ment among competitors to combine
for the purpose of eXtorting an unrea-
sonable price.
facturers to preserve high standards
in manufactured articles. That agree,
ment is criminal under the law Take
an agreement among competitors on
perishable goods designed to prevent
an oversupply at particular point OF
periShable commodities like meat and
fruit, where, if they were allowed to
accumulate, loss of wealth would be
the result, which is injurious to both
the producer and the community. Such
agreements as that are criminal under
the law.
Two Kinds of Agreements
THE point l wish to make is that
there are two kinds of agreements in
restraint of trade, those which are
beneficial to the public as we'll as
those which are injurious. An agree
ment in restraint of trade not to sell
below cost is not of necessity a disad-
vantage and Of injury to a community
for certainly we have heard a great
deal recently about great institutions
underselling for period Of time in
certain localities, selling below cost,
for the purpose of crushing out compe-
tition in order that they may later ex-
ercise monopoly and raise the price.
"A great many of these agreements
in restraint of trade are for the purpose
not of extortion, but of letting a rea-
sonable amount of competition exist