Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-09-20


based upon a finding by the commits
sion that the same are issued. first
Tor purposes authorized by law. aud
seconu. for price not less than par for
stock and not less than the reasonable
market value Of bonds. such price be-
ing paid either in cash or in property
or IN services ana 10 In properly or
services, though at the face value
thereof as determined by the commits
sion.
TRAFFIC. RATES.
I'm addition TO amendments TO the
law which are looking to a rather more
drastic regulation OF railroad rates than
heretofore. another provision should be
added by which railroads may be per-
mitted 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 always that such agreements
shall receive the approval of the in
terstate commerce commission. In this
WISE the operation of the antitrust law
against traffic agreements between rail-
roads will be abolished: and against
their absolute prohibition would be sub
stituted a requirement that such agree
ments shan meet the. approval OF a
properly constituted tribunal
ANTITRUST LAW.
This brings me to the question Of
the antitrust law. While we have not
threshed the whole matter out SO as 10
reach a definite conclusion. ] am still
inclined to the view that the way 10
make the antitrust law more effective
Is to narrow its scope somewhat so
that il shall not include In its profit
bition and denunciation as crime any
thing but a conspiracy or combination
or contract entered into with actual
intent to monopolize or suppress COM
petition In interstate trade.
''At the common law all contracts in
restraint OF trade, except those which
were called reasonable, the courts
would decline TO enforce.
THE antitrust law denounces SUCH
contracts. when Ia restraint OF inter-
state trade, whether criminal whether
made with intent to monopolize or sup
press competition or without intent 10
do either The theory seemed to be
that a contract in restraint of inter
state trade tended To monopoly and
therefore should be denounced because
OF its tendency. whether there was any
actual purpose on the part OF the per-
son making il Go monopolize or sup
press competition or not.
This feature of the present anti
trust law has. IL seems, weakened its
force because IL has seemed to bring
within the condemnation of the law
contracts and other arrangement
which We're actually innocent in their
character. and which were not included
in those various combinations which
il was the real intent Of the law u
suppress.
"If the crimes denounced In the law
were confined TO combinations. con
spiracies and contracts made with in
tent TO monopolize or partially monop-
Ollie interstate trade or TO suppress
competition in Interstate trade. ther
the real object OF the law would come
within It's denuuciation, and no on'
could declare its opinion 10 be unrea-
sonable IN that IL included a lot OF in
nocent contracts or arrangements.
DOESN'T FAVOR LIMITATION.
"It has been suggested that the Law
ought to limit its denunclation TO thos'
contracts in restraint OF trade tina
are unreasonable. II don't favor an,
such limitation. II seems to be pro
! posed to leave TO the judges TO decide
what combinations and contracts u
restraint OF trade ought TO be permit
] ted TO exist and enforced on genera
grounds OF public policy-in othc
| words, TO have the court attempt {
establish some line between what ar
| called good and bad trusts, as II IN
/ suppression of competition In som
cases was a good thing and I'm othe
cases was bad. cannot agree tina
any such distinction can be propcrl
made
IAN combinations TO suppress com
| petition. or 10 maintain a monopoly Il
whole or IN part, OF interstate trad,
are and should be- IN violation OF IN
| antitrust law and should be puuishe
as such: and there is no room for IN
/ NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. or unreason
able--in this general view OF IN
| statute
| III the statute were limited TO com
| blnations, conspiracies ana contracts &
/ restrain trade with intention 10 m0nop
| olize interstate trade or with intent L
/ suppress competition therein. u woull
| probably not Include within it, denun
| ciatlon a boycott against railroads 60
/ ing into Interstate trade because sucl
a boycott Is n restraint against inter
| state trade with the intention 20 ne
strain il, but IL Is not a restraint %
Interstate trade with intent 10 eithe
suppress or 10 maintain n monopoly o
the goods, with respect 10 which IN
contract IS made
OPPOSED TO EXCEPTIONS.
81 am entirely opposed 10 eNceptin
| from tha operation OF any law OF gen
! eral application q class OF persons liz
laborers or working mon or farmer
! or ministers or teachers or lawyer
, Take the present antitrust law there
fore and Insert n special exception {
the application of that law hy proNid
ing that Il should not apply Ca IN
trade unions class ana n would b
legislation OF the most vicious char
actcr. but when you make the la'
apply only 10 cnnaplracies seeking
suppress cOmpet<lOn or 90 munopoliz
tho trade, then the labor boycott
probably not Included. simply hecaus
the statute would not seem wild
enough 20 include Il IN ~ scope, an
this result Is obtained without elias
legislation al an.
A telegram from Private secy cai
renter was received this ilorning D
MANOR Dahlman. asking n II was, po'
sible that "A suspension of the stflh
controversy be- arranged during IN
presidents visit
The muvor consulted President Wa
ties % The street car company, WI
readily agreed o. tho proposal aud an
nouncemenf was IN once made ms
an car service would be stopped for Oh
da.' az y. m.
Non-union conductors and motorme
10 the number ~ rs arrived todH
from Chicago No special effort VI
made % resume oar service toda
There have ha4n no disorders
The strike leaders announces toda