Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-10-24
DAWES SHARP ATTACK
Ex-ControIIer of Currency
RapS Attorney General.
CHARGES GALLERY PLAYS
Criticism of Department of Justice
Methods.
CASES TRIED IN NEWSPAPERS
Exploits the Sherman Antitrust
Law-Made Use of by Dema-
gogues-Radical Legislation.

CHICAGO, October 24.-Dclegates to the
National Civic Federation convention to-
day were eagerly discussing remarks
made at the meeting of last night by
Charles G. Dawes, ex-controller OF the
currency.
Mr.. Dawes made sharp attack upon
the federal Depart tncnt of Justice. virtual
ly charging the office of the Attorney
General with making gallery plays" He
said in part
Il cannot say that it is Intentional on
the part of the Department of Justice,
but some Of its actions look remarkably
as If favofitism were being splayed in
the selection of the combinations to be in
vestigated and in the manner of attack.
1T Is inevitable that the man who does
things is in the public eye. and an attack
upon him Will always win publicity. It
is remarkable that the cases handled by
the Department of Justice are always
tried in the newspapers before they get
into the courts
The speaker also criticised the maga-
zine writer's who, he said. made a prac-
tice of attacking the men who accom-
plished great things in the mercantile and
financial world.
Law a a6Tr1er.
The Sherman antitrust law was charac.
terized hy Mr.. Dawes as a barrier in tho
way Of the proper solution of the problems
that confront the government He de-
clared that the Sherman law is being
made use of by demagogues is being
made use of by the men who appeal to
the prejudices of the public instead Of
to their reason, and said ;ha. @ntil We
find in this country that sort of leader
ship in public affairs which dares to take
the castigat.on OF the radical rortion of
the people in upholding before them
practical remedies we wi not make any
progress toward. the solution of these
questions.
They are inherently and essentially
business questions" said he. Ito be settled
in business way, with caution and de-
liberation. and not through appeals to the
passion and the prejudice Of the people.
THE Sherman antitrust law was pass
ed during a condition Of the public mind
which is much similar to that which az.
lists at present. There he'd come q re-
action aga nst an unQuestionably evil
condition in many of the great corpora
tions of the country, and as is usually the
case the reaction went too far and lily
conceived radical legislation on this great
question of the relation of the COVE -nment
to corporations was passed without due
consideration, in the shape of the Sherman
antitrust law 1t provided in general
terms, without further definition, that
every agreement in restraint of trade
is criminal and punishable by fine or inn
prisonment
Day of Trade Agreements.
Now this is the day of tade agree
ments. These agreements are formed for
the purpose of prescribing what might be
called the rules of the game, many Of
which are in restraint of trade. and many
of which are most beneficially in restraint
of trade. All agreements in rrstraint of
t-ade are not criminal. An agreement
among manufacturers, for instance. to sell
only pure goods, as distinguished from
adulterated goods, is unquestionably in the
public interest. Therefore | say that an
agreement to sell at cost or above may
not be public injury. OF course it may
be to the public injury. Agreements in
restraint of trade may be for the purpose
OF allowing competition to exist, not for
the purpose of eXtorting. Competition is
running riot in this country
unrestricted competition is what has
built up these tremendous corporations
Wh1ch are beginning to take a monopolis-
tic control of certain marke.s in our coun.
try, and the Sherman antitrust law di.
rectly encourages the formation of these
great corporations up TO a certain point
because. provided all competition is not
destroyed, they can by consolidation effect
the same results legally under the Sher-
man antitrust Jaw which they could not
as separate corporations by means Of an
agreement in restraint of trade. So that
up to certain point this very Sherman
antitrust law encourages the stamping
out of the individual corporation What
need at this time is first a clear def
milton in the law itself Of what is legal
and what is Illegal In the shane of an
agreement in restraint of trade. The bust
ness community today Is in doubt as to
what constitutes a crime llnder the Sher-
man antitrust law, and as a result of that
the good man refrains from agreements
which may be in the interest Of the public,
and the bad man takes risks with the
law with greater impunity. TIE result Is
that the unscrupulous man violates the
Sherman antitrust law. and is doing 1t to-
day with great tmpunity, and the man
who wants to obey the law is at disad-
vantage.
Encourages Bad Agreements.
The Sherman antitrust law today is
encoura ging bad agreements In restraint
of trade and is discouraging good agree
ments in restraint of trade. Including, as
it does. acts both inherently innocent and
those inherently guilty under its provi-
sions and of necessity therefore giving
such wide latitude and discretion to pub
lie officers in their rights to proceed
against a corporation and aga nst an In
dividua, of necessity cannot he enforced
without the appearance OF favoritism.
Take, for instance, the case against the
Northern Pacific and the Great Northern
Company, called the Northern Securities
case. In that case the government pro-
ceeded against the corporation and not
d inst the Individual In the case of the
packers II proceeded against the individ-
ual well the corporation. and II
found itself in that particular case an
through one departm mt, the De-
partment of Commerce, that the business
was not a monopoly, and conducted at
a reasonable profit and through another
department, the Department of Justice,
at the same time, seeking to put the own
ers of the business in Jail public male
factors.
There must be provided IN some way
a preliminary consideration of trade
agreements in their rela ton to the public,
whether the agreements are in restraint
of trade or not, and then If they are
either not harmful TO or for the benefit of
the public they must be sanctioned and
upheld. If they are found to be detrimen-
tal then they must be foroidd IN. and II
s. 1T