The Londonderry sifter. (South Londonderry, Vt.) 1883-19??, 1907-07-18
Washington Letter.
(From our regular correspondence


the Department of Justice for the
appointment of receiver for any
corporation found violating the Sher-
man Antitrust Act. This is some
thing new under the sun. At least,
there is no palpable evidence that it
was ever used by Darius, the Per-
sian, or that like the invention of
gun powder, it was an old trick of
the Chinese. 1t is radical move
in the realm of octopus hunting,
and it looks as though the trusts
would have to figure long time be-
fore they found way to beat it,
The great trouble has been here
tofore that though the government
hight gain an occasional legal vic
tory over some big monopolistic COR
poration, as was done in the case of
the Northern Securities Company
and over the Standard Oil in 1899,
yet there was no assurance that aft
er the verdict had been rendered in
favor of the government it would
have any effect in really breaking up
the monopoly at which it was aimed
The trust would cheerfully go about
complying with the order of the
court to dissolve itself, and would
take so long in the process that
eventually everyone would forget all
about the original decision. When
it did finally dissolve, there would
some new company spring up, owned
and differed by the same officials
and would cheerfully continue the
same unlawful practices for which
they had been dissolved before.
But now Milton Purdy, the Assist
ant Attorney-Genera has devised
plan that promises to eliminate the
trust managers from the problem.
At least, Mr.. Purdy gets the credit
for originating the receivership plan,
though Col. Bryan probably will
say that it is only his government
ownership scheme thinly disguised. |
Mr.. Purdy proposes that when
the government gets an Injunction
a trust. it shall not fool
with the old officials of the Trust |
and expect them to put themselves
out of business. He will ask for a
receiver and run the business under
government supervision for so long
4 time as is necessary while the trust
is getting judiciously broken up and
restored to its original parts. OF
the cry will be raised imme
1iately that this is nothing less than
government ownership. So it is.
But receiver for a convicted trust
md the receiver for an embarrassed
oank or bankrupt firm are not at all
different. The receiver is the officer
If the court, and he is put in charge
If the property to run it for the best
interests of the public and the cred
tors and stockholders till it is in
to run itself again. Some
'eceiverships last for years, and it is
quite possible that the receivership
or trust would continue long
ime. But it would have this adj
'antage over government ownership,
hat the government, having &C
Iuired it would be able to get rid of
t whenever it chose and would not
'e saddled with the responsibility
Indefinitely if it did not want it.
At least, while the receivership
the public would be as
ured of square deal, the employ
'es of living wages and the govern
nent that trade was not being stran-
,led by lack of competition or the
being MIXED of rebates in
rider to pnt some other firm
nut of business. There are GER
ain advantages and economies in
of which the receiver
ould take advantage, and the ac-
cunts would be under his inspec-
ion so that if inordinate prices were
'eing charged, he could lower them
The best evidence that the scheme
8 one to be seriously considered is
he fact that the representatives of
IL the trusts with headquarters in
Washington and nearly all of them
AVE special representatives here,
re taking the announcement very
and discussing the best
nethods of keeping from getting in
o the clutches of the receiver. The
nswer is very simple. All they
AVE to do is to refrain from law
and the government not
My cannot touch them, but will
lot want to.
It may be noted in connection
With the proposed trip of the battle