The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1907-07-26
Sherman ANTITRUST
HIT At strongly
Chicago Banker Declares
That It Is Against Pub
lie Interest.
SHOULD BE DEFINED.
Public Should Know Ex-
actly What 1t Can
Undertake.

restraint OIL trade, and they are not
agreements for the purpose always of
supporting an unreasonable price I
would not for a moment define an
agreement in restraint of trade which
had for its purpose tine extorting from
the public Of an unreasonable price. 1t
should be under the man Of the law. III
should be made criminal, as the sher-
man Antitrust Law also is criminal.
But the trouble with the Sherman An
Thrust Law is that it takes equally
criminal an agreement in restraint of
trade which is inherently in court
which may be for the benefit OF the
public, which may be singly for the
purpose of preserving natural rights,
which may be at any rate not in1uri-
GUS to the public. Take, for instance,
an agreement among competitors to
compete only upon pure goods as dis
tinguished from adulterated goods, UNI
duestionably in the interest of the pub
lie, and yet 1t is as criminal under the
Sherman Antitrust Law, as criminal
as an agreement among competitors to
combine for the purpose of extorting
an unreasonable price. Take an agree
ment among manufacturers TO pre-
serve high standards in Manufacture
over-supply at a particular point of
perishaSle commodities like meat and
trnit. Where, If they were allowed to
accumu ate, loss of Wet III woulc be
the result which is injurious to both
the producer and the community.
hoL All.
under the law
THE point I wish to make Is that
there are two kinds Of agreements in
straint OF trade, those which are bene-
fetal to the public as well as those
which are injurious. An agreement in
restraint of trade not to sell below cost
is not of necessity a disadvantage and
of injury to a community, for certainly
we have heard a great deal recently
about great institutions under-seling
for a period of time in certain locali-
ties, selling below cost, for the pur-
pose Of crushing out competition in or
der that they may later exercise a
monopoly and raise the price A great
many Of these agreements in restraint
Of trade are for the purpose Of exist
ence not of extortion, of letting a rea-
sonable amount Of competition exist.
Under the laws of trade and commerce
as we have them to-day, competition Is
running riot in this country, as we
hear all over the country criticism of
the kind of competition that these
great institutions are giving some of
the smaller institutions Of this coun-
try. And yet anything on the part of
the small institutions designed to pre-
vent that sort of crushing out COM
petition which Is building up the true
Imonopolies of the United States Is as
guilty under the Sherman Antitrust
Law, is as criminal as any other kind
of an agreement designed to extort
from and iniure the people of the
United States.
The Sherman Antitrust Law makes
criminal in these general terms any
agreement in restraint of trade in the
United States or with foreign nations
Now, it is indefinite in its description
of a crime. And being indefinite in its
description of the crime, the business
community Is in doubt as to what is
criminal. Now, when it is in doubt
as to what is criminal when the nature
of the crime is not fixed in the minds
of the business community, the scrup-
ulous man refrains from action and
the INSCRIPTIONS man takes 1t with
greater impunity. The scrupulous
man refrains from entering into any
combination of trade, however bene-
fetal it may be to the public or how
ever necessary it may be to his bust
ness, for he does not desire to take
any risks with the law. The un-
scrupulous man violates that law with
greater impunity, for experience has
shown us that in this country and ev-
cry other country that any law which
makes equally criminal an innocent act
with a guilty act is inevitably difficult
Of enforcement. The result is that the
Sherman Antitrust Law to-day dis
eliminates against purely useful, bene-
fetal agreements in restraint of trade,
and ages-directly encourages
| injurious agreements in restraint of
trade, 1t initiates against the scrup-
ulous business man, it initiates
against the good trade agreement and
in favor of the bad trade agreement. 1t
actually puts a premium upon con-
solidation and concentration up to a
certain point, for provided all COM
petition is not destroyed it encourages
the consolidation of competing corr
porations up to a certain point, because
they can do legally then as corpora
ton through what consolidation-they
which would be illegal and criminal If
done as separate corporations under a
trade agreement. The very effect of
that law has been to encourage the
more rapid crushing out of competition
! in this country
In addition to this effect which the
Sherman Antitrust Law has, there are
one or two other very serious conse-
quences which follow from thai law.
Of necessity, a law framed in such
general terms making equally criminal
an act which is inherently Innocent
with one which is inherently guilty, Of
necessity under such an act such wide