The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1907-07-19

prohibit almost every contract Of any
kind (since practically every contract
is more or less in restraint of trade')
makes the law a dangerous weapon in
the hands of demagogues and throws
upon the administration a responsible
ity in applying 1t that may be made
the foundation for charges of partial
lity. The fact that 1t furnishes no sat-
isfactory means for the prevention of
the acs complained Of makes of little
use in practice.
4 Lines of Reform.
What is being urged by federal Of
f1cials at the present time is the en-
actment of laws which take the place
of the Sherman act. Foremost among
these is the legislation for the control
of capitalization which was proposed
| last winter and spring. Such capitalize
ton legislation, in the opinion of the
officials In question, should apply not
only to railroads but also to corpora
lions of industrial character that are
doing an interstate business. 1t would
be intended as a protection to the In
vestor; but, apart from this, 1t would
give the federal government great pow
| er through the granting or Withholding
kof charters. This could under the prop
Ter management be an exceedingly effec-
five weapon in the control of business
enterprises which might otherwise be
guilty of practices inimical to publci
welfare
Coupled with this idea OF federal con-
troll of Incorporation and capitalization
LOT concerns engaged In interstate COM
MERGE, is the proposal to secure a much
greater degree Of publicity in the ac-
counts and financial operations OF cor
porations generally. With these two
points assured, and with relations be-
tween the concerns and the railways
carefully guarded. there would be little
danger Of difficulty, according to the
views of some officials. There are
others who believe that the law should
go further and that, even with the
Sherman act repealed and the provis-
ions already referred to duly made,
there would be call for more specific
and positive legislation. They think
that the law to supersede the Sherman
act should give specific attention to
certain classes of contracts In restraint
of trade, and should specify distinctly
what Is an unreasonable restraint RI
such trade, instead of leaving the mat
ter to be settled on, over-liberal or over
conservative lines as it Is at present
Administrative Control.
There Is a strong feeling that the
bringing of suits against combinations
that are unduly In restraint of trade or
that operate to injure the public well
flare should be in the hands Of definite
administrative mechanism charged with
1.-THE duty Of determining when such
suits are to be brought. 1t Is very char
acterstic of the situation at present that
there is no regular mode of determining
the conditions attacked. AS already no.
ted, IL the Sherman act were 70 be d.
rected against all concerns COM
ing within it's scope as now interpreted,
probably few business enterprises would
be secure. But as things stand the de-
APARTMENT of justice may decide of its
own motion to institute prosecutions cr
llL may wall lOA lllb lSdAlStS VI Tie d1~
lministration to ask for the undertaking
Iof given suit or it may cooperate
with the interstate commerce commits
sion or the bureau of corporations,
These latter offices may get certain In
formation and certify 1t to the depart
ment, thereby suggesting or practically
asking for the beginning of suit. The
other bureaus referred to do not re-
gard 1t as their duty. to do more or
dlnarlly than to collect facts and thus
the present situation as regards anti
trust proceedings is confused and OBJ
scure.
If the law were such that 1t could be
administered practically by the inter-
state commerce commission and the
bureau of corporations, it being made
the duty of these offices to report reg
ularly on violations of the law that de-
manded prosecution, and II the depart
ment of justice should take hold Of all
cases thus certified to 1t without ques-
ton of antitrust laws would become
mort nearly matter of routine admin
iistratlon. There would be no more
Iquestion of expediency than in the APP
plication of any other statute. At all
events, there must be some better sys-
tenn before long whereby the differ
ent offices engaged in railroad and cor
poration control and in the bringing of
legal actions for the vll.ation Of law
will be less in danger of conflicting
with one another's work.
Position of Congress,