The Washington times., 1910-04-12
Continued from First Page-)

Continued from First Pagel
interstate commerce. violates the com
mon law against monopoly, violates
me StaTe law against acquiring other
corporate property, violates the r'cderal
Law against combination and monopoly
10 suppress competition in interstate
commerce, IS sued in the Massachusetts
supreme court and judgment rendered
against it. is sued in the Federal court
and delays the case until the Admins
IIaIion which Brings the suit goes out
OF Office and new Administration IS
Installed. seeks and secures state les
isiation which pretends 70 authorize II
to combine common carriers engaged IN
interstate commerce IN violation OF Fed
eraI law, and then secures dismissal OF
the Federal suit which the Federal
court had sustained al every point N q
running night OF thirteen months
Action Of Legislature
In other words. a state legislature
al the behest Of an interstate railroad
corporation presumes 10 repeal a Fed
eral law and license an act which Con-
gress, in the exercise OF its constitU-
tionaI authority 10 regulate interstate
commerce, has declared TO De q crime
against the people And the Attorney
General, the highest law officer OF the
Federal Government. sworn TO preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution and
enforce the laws OF congress, gives his
official approval Of this legislative com
pact between che New Haven company
and the Massachusetts Legislature TO
uuIlify the law of Congress, and declares
that il expressly authorizes what Con-
Mr. President. If the Federal anti
-T-sSt law can be repealed by a State
j z-Isiature. lf the Department OF Jus
lice at Washington VIII hold confer
enres with and lend Countenance TO
the agents Of law-brea king corporations,
while they are engaged IN lobbying
through state leGisla lures a pretended
"a ctiCn of their violation of the Grim
ina statutes Of the Federal Govern
ment, and then by official edict make
such state statutes q shield and cover
under which the criminal corporations
may go unuhipued of iustfce-if the
door Of the Federal court may thus be
closed IN the face Of wronEcd and
outraged pubitc By the Attorney Gen
eTsl Of the United StateS-then, SIR. the
Jaw becomes a black ART and justice a
mere JUEEler.s pawn
How Law Would Operate.
Mr.. President. If Section 70 had been
the law at the time OF the occurrences
Of the events 7 have detailed. what
would have been the resUItg Under the
provisions Of that section the New
Haven, after making the agreements for
consolidation, fearing the antitrust act.
might apply 10 the court of commerce
for an adjudication, as between il AMI
the United States as 10 whether or not
the proposed acquisition Of street rail-
ways and other properties was in vio-
Is-iun Of tbs section
Assuming that this would be a
proper exercise Of judicial power and
that the court OF commerce would en-
terrain jurisdiction. what have we
right % expect would have haunpupd2
a
has done fr IS not a violent assumption
10 state that he would nave entered
into a stipulation with the New Haven
road that The roads proposed TO be ar-
Qulred were not directly and substau-
TALLY competitive, that upon such Stipu-
I7fIon judgment would have been rem
oerec by the court or commerce in ac-
For1auCe with the stipulation thereby
eSfonDInE the Government forever from
making any claim that sucn acquisi-
items were m violation Of the Sherman
antitrust act
The commerce court is Of inferior
JuIlsdlctlnH- Tn proper case the ST.
pIcWe Court might hold exactly similar
transactions we're in violation OF the
antitrust ar-, but because OF this 1udC-
5-ta- OF -le court or commerce ron
dered nv stipulation. estop15ug the Gov
eminent from ever proving the facts as
LlsE exist the sherman act could never
Re invoked against these plain viola
tons Of law By the New Haven.
Power Of Attorney General
1T would be no greater violation OF
trust and duty for the Attorney General
70 enter into such stipulation than was
the dismissal Of the suit which I have
discussed No inferior court should be
empowered To render a judgment OF
estoppel uron questions Of such ire
mendOUs importance and no attorney
general should be empowered 20 stipu-
late away the rights Of the people for
ali time"
Senator Ia Toilette continued.
This legislation cannot be justified BY
any theoretical discussion Of the d.
tribueion OF The powers Of the Interstate
Commerce Commission Nor can 81 ha
sustained bv arguments concerning the
merits OF q commerce court. Nor VIII
the public be led 20 approve Il by any
contention that in some Of its features
= represents an advance over existing
Law
This legislation must be tried in
the light of the actual, existing and
outrageous conditions with which il pre-.
tends to deal With much labor have
gathered together the known facts in