The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1907-07-27
SHERMAN LAWS
FOUND WANTING
Address of Charles G. Dawes
TO the Wisconsin State
Bankers Association.
ACT CANNOT BE ENFORCED.
BLIGHT UPON PROPER PROG
REss OF COUNTRY.

Ddihers association here today on THE
Defects Of the Sherman Antitrust Law
He said in part:
The Sherman antitrust law makes
criminal all agreements in restraint OF
trade, whether they are Inherently erin.
lnal or not. 1t makes in these general
Terms something criminal without further
ueI!hluon, Now this is the day of the
tIaGe agreement in the United States
we nave national CITY, state and district
agreements in restraint of trade and they
are not agreements for the purpose of
eNtorung an unreasonable price. ] would
-iOI lot moment defend an agreement in
restraint or trade which had for its pur-
pose the eXtorting from the public of an
unreasonable price 1t should be under
me pan of the law. 1t should be made
criminal IS the Sherman antitrust law
makes II criminal But the trouble with
the Sherman antitrust law is that #
makes equally criminal an agreement in
!estralnt or trade which is inherently in
Ilocent, which may be for the benefit of
me pubic, which may be simply for the
purpose or preserving natural rights
when may be at any rate not iniurious
70 me pubhc. Take. for instance. an
SeIeeInent among competitors to con1pete
Cliy upon pure goods as distinguished
rom adulterated goods, unuuestiona bIv
IN the interest of the public and vet II
= cIln5hal under the Sherman antitrust
"a" To-Day, as criminal as an agreement
among competitors to combine for the
purpose Of extorting an unreasona BILE
price. rake an agreement among manu-
lacturers to preserve high standards in
manufactured articles That agreement is
criminal under the law. Take an agree
lnent among competitors on perishable
goods designed TO prevent an oversupply
az a particular point of perishable com
modities like meat and fruit. where #
they were allowed to accumulate loss of
wealth would be the result. which is in
Jurl9us TO both the producer and the COM
TnE
criminal under the law
Two Kinds of Agreements.
The point 1 wish to make is that there
ait Two Kinds or agreements in restraint
OF trade, those which are beneficial to the
pubic as well those which are iniur-
lvus. An agr Mt In restraint of trade
hoI 70 sell CIV st is not of necessity
9 UlsauNaht .~e Io injury to a com
munlty, for ,e-ta we have heard a
great deal recently about great institu-
tons undersellirg Tor a period of time i'm
certain locallL ~ St ing below cost for
me purpose OF crushing out competition
IN order that they may exercise a monop-
oly ana raise the price. great many
OF these agreements in restraint of trade
are Tor the purpose of existence not of
eNtoruon. of letting a reasonabl amount
OIL competition exist. Under the laws of
trade ana commerce as we have them to-
DAY, competition is run,inR riot In This
country as we hear all yer the country |
criticism of the kind Of P,onpetition that |
these great institutions re giving Soma |
OF the smaller institutions of the coun- |
try. And yet anything % the part OF the /
snaII institutions designed to prevent that /
SORT or crushing out competition which /
Is building up the true nlonopolies of the |
United States is as guilty. under the Sher- |
man antitrust law, is ask Criminal as any |
other kind Of agreemen fs esigned to ex- |
tort from and injure tn people Of the |
United States.
Law Is Indefinite.
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, 1T is indefinite in its description of |
a crime. And being indefinite in its de- |
munity 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 mir is of the business
community the scrupulous man refrains |
from action and the INSCRIPTIONS man
takes it with greater impunity. The SERUM
ulous man refrafns from entering into any
combination of trade, however beneficial |
it may be to the public. or however nee
essary 1t may be to his business for he
does not desire to take any risks with the
law. The INSCRIPTIONS man violates
mat law with greater impunity for ex-
perlence has shown US that in this coIln-
try and every other country that any law
winch makes equally criminal an inno- |
cent act with a guilty act is inevitably
difficult of enforcement. The result is
Jhat the Sherman antitrust law today
against purely useful bene-
1lclal agreements in restraint of trade |
and encourage s-directly encourages
injurious agreements in restraint of
trade 1t initiates against the scrupulous
business man; it initiates against the
good trade agreement and in favor of the
bad trade agreement. 1t actually puts
q premium upon consolidation and con-
centration up to a certain point, for pro-
Vided all competition is not destroyed it
encourages the consolidation of compel
ing corporations up to a certain point,
because they can do legally then as a cor
poratlon through that consolidation-they
can get the substance of a trade agree
lnent by that method-that which would
be Illegal and criminal if done as sepa-
rate corporations under a trade agree
lnent. The very effect of that law has
been TO encourage the more rapid crush
ing out of competition in this country.
Some Serious Consequences.
In addition to this effect which the
Sherman antitrust law has, there are
gCences which follow from that 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 latitude of |
discretion is given to the executive Of ]
lcerS or government in their right to pro- /
'eed against persons and corporations ! ,
nat in the enforcement of this law the /
appearance of favoritism is made inevita- |
Die. The Sherman antitrust law is as
;uming criminal before trial a trade Y
greement This is as wrong in connec- {
ion with business as it would be to as
ume criminal before trial any individ-
ial charged with an offense under the
avs Of the United States, and il is be
,ause Of this inclusion of acts which are
Inherently innocent with acts that are {
Inherently guilty that we have not had {
nd cannot have any such thing as gen q
raj enforcement of the law under the J
Sherman antitrust law. Surprising We I
We should have no laws upon our books
which are not susceptible with profit TO
he community Of general enforcement
we should have the general en- I
of the Sherman antitrust law e
THAT would be the result? The tendency
-ould be on the part Of the good man in |
usiness, If prevented from making those
ort of agreements which will allow him
o exist. 10 sell out his business to those &,
tho will take risks with the law which :
a public injury Or it might lead him =
D sell out his business to those who will | =
ompete with each other again, cutting r
p these large businesses and thereby les 4
sning the economy of production and the Il
istribution which is public injury. a
Cannot Be Enforced. h
we do not want these general laws y
D.