The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-09-21

upon Wnicn IL cdnnOt pay DeCduSe tnc
securities were not represented by
actual value put into the railroad.
think, therefore, 1t is plainly with
In the power of congress in deal
ing with Interstate railroad compan-
les, that are organized under state
corporations, to insist tnat, in order
to maintain efficient instruments of
transportation, the watering of stocks
and bonds on them shall cease.
These suggested amendments to the
interstate commerce law will entrust
to the interstate commission consitl.
cradle more power than that trlbun-
al has at present. But we nave en-.
tered upon course of regulating
railroads. and, as the laws which wo
passed have not been as effective for
the purposes which 1t was hoped, VIC
must continue to introduce amend
ments to bring about n law which
will serve the purpose which we have
"One great trouble wItn railroad
management was the allowance by
railroads of Illegal and dlscrimina-
tory rebate. Those have now largely
ceased and that was one of the great
accomplishments of Mr.. Roosevelt's
administration. But the question of
rates and their Justice still remains.
The scope of the authority of the In
terstate Commerce commission has
not been wise enough to make the
regulation as effective as IL ought 10
be, and to bring under cpnsidera-
ton as many of the rates as 1t should
within a reasonable time.
"In addition TO these amendments
tn hA To- tol,
rather more drastic regulation of rail-
read rates than heretofore, another
provision should be added by which
railroads may be permitted to agree
upon traffic rates and make contracts
with respect to rates that shall not be
pooling contracts but shall constitute
agreements as to rates--provided al
ways that such agreements shall re-
ceive the approval or the Interstate
Commerce commission. In this wise
the operation OF the antitrust law
hgainst traffic agreements between
railroads will be abolished and against
their absolute prohibition would be
substituted a requirement that such
agreements shall meet the approval
OF a property constituted tribunal.
This last section brings me to the
question of the ANTITRUST law. While
we have not threshed the whole mat
ter out sufficiently as to reach n def
mite conclusion, am strongly inclined
to the view that the way To make tho
antitrust law more effective is to
narrow its scope somewhat so thai
IL shall not include in its prohibition
and denunciation as q crime any
thing but conspiracy or combination
or contract entered into with actual
intent to monopolize or suppress
competition in interstate trade. 1t
has been suggested that the law ought
to limit its denunciation to those con
tracts in restraint of trade that are
unreasonable. I do not favor any
in the common law, the reasonable
restraint of trade came to have a
very different meaning.
1T seems to be proposed to leave
to the judges to decide what combina-
tions aind contracts in restraint Of
trade ought to be permitted TO be en-
forced on the general grounds pf
public policy. In other words to
have the court attempt to establish
some line between what are called
god and bad trusts as IL the sup
preston of composition in some cases
was a good thing and in other cases
was bad.
II cannot agree that any such dis.
tlnction can be properly made. All
combination to suppress competition
or to maintain monopoly in whole
or in part, of interstate trade. is
and should be in violation of the anti
trust law and should be punished as
such; and there is no room for the
expression reasonable or 'unreason-
able in this general view of the stat.
ute. If the statutes were limited to
combinations, conspiracies and casu-
alties to, restrain trade with intent to
monopolize interstate trade or with
intent to suppress competition there
in, 1t would probably not include
within it's denunciation a boycott
against goods going into interstate
trade. because such boycott is in re-
not a restraint of interstate trade with
the intention TO restrain II, but 1t Is
not q restrain of interstate trade with
the intent to suppress competition oil
to maintain a monopory of the goods,
with respect to which the contract is
made. ... tt,t..,,.
ST am entirely opposed to except
ing from the operation of. any law of
general application a class of. persons
like laborers or workingmen or far
mers or ministers or teachers, or law
yers. Take the present anti-trust
law, therefore, and insert special
exception to the application of that
law by providing that 1t should not
apply to the trade unions; and II
would be class legislation of the most
vicious character, but when you make
the law apply only to conspiracies
seeking to suppress competition or TO
the trade, then the labor
boycott is probably not included sim
ply because the state would not Sc
cure wide enough latitude to include
1t in its scope, and this result is OBJ
tanned without class legislation at all
II am in favor of this change be-
cause / believe that the ordinary ac-
ton in equity by injunction in any
place where the boycott is operative
can accomplish effectively all the pur-
poses that ought to be accomplished
in the suppression of such an evil.