The daily sentinel., 1910-01-07

-, the country. including a dozen states.
and to many other combinations af
fecting interstate trade. The value
of statute which is rendered more
and more certain in its meaning by
n series of decisions of the supreme
court furnishes a strong reason for
leaving the act as IL is. TO accomplish
its useful purpose even though, II ii
were being newly enacted, useful
suggestions as to change of phrase
might be made.
1t is the duty and the purpose of
the executive to direct investigation
by the department of Justice, through
the grand jury or otherwise, into the
history, organization and purposes OF
all the industrial companies with re-
spect to which there is any reasona-
BILE ground for a purpose and are
conducting business on plan which
is in violation OF the antitrust law.
The work is heavy one. but it is
not beyond the power of the depart
ment of justice, If sufficient funds
are furnished to carry on the investi-
cations and to pay the counsel en-
gagged in the work. But such an in
yestigation and possible prosecution
of corporations. whose prosperity or
destruction affects the comfort not
only of stockholders but OF millions
of wage earners, employees and asso-
ciated trades, must necessarily tend
TO disturb the confidence OF the busi-
ness community, to dry up the now
flowing sources of capital from its
places OF boarding and produce a halt
in our present prosperity that Will
cause suffering and strained circum-
stances among the innocent many TO,
the faults of the guilty few The
question which wish in this message
to bring clearly to the consideration
and discussion of congress is, wheth-
err, in order to avoid such n possible
business danger, something cannot be
done by which these business combi-
nations may be offered a means,
without great financial disturbance,
of changing the character, organiza-
tion and extent of their business in
to one within the lines of the law
under federal control and supervis-
ion. securing compliance with the an
ti-trust statute.
Generally in the industrial com
binations called trusts" the prin-
cipal business is the sale of goods in
many states and in foreign markets;
in other words, the interstate and
ness 'one in any one state. This fact
will Justify the federal government
| in granting a federal charter to such
combination to make and sell in
| interstate and foreign commerce the
products of useful manufacture un-
der such limitations as will secure a
| compliance with the antitrust law
| 1t is possible so to frame statute
that while 1t offers protection to
| federal company against harmful,
yexatious and unnecessary invasion
| by the states, 1t shall subject II to
reasonable taxation and control by
| the states with respect to its purely
local business.
Many people conducting great
| businesses have cherished a hope and
a belief that in some way or other
| line may be drawn between good
trusts and bad trusts" and that 1t
| is possible by amendment TO the anti
trust laws to make distinction un-
| der which good combinations may be
permitted to organize, suppress com
| petition, control price and do it all
legally II only they do not abuse the
power by taking too great profit out
of the business They point with
force TO certain notorious trusts as
| having grown into power through
criminal methods, by the use of ille-
| gal rebates and plain cheating and
| by various acts utterly yiolatiye of
| business honesty or morality. and
urge the establishment of some legal
| line of separation by which criminal
| trusts" of this kind can be punished,
| and they, on the other hand, be per-
\ mitted under the law to carry on
| their business Now the public and
especially the business public, ought
| to rid themselves of the idea that
| such a distinction is practicable or
can be introduced into the statute.
/ Certainly under the present antitrust
! law no distinction exists. IL has been
/ proposed, however, that the word
reasonable" should be made part
of the statute and then 1t should be
| left to the court TO say what is
reasonable restraint of trade, what is
| reasonable suppression of competi-
! tion, and what is q reasonable mo-
! nopoiy. ! venture to think that this
| is to put into the hands of the court
u power impossible to exercise on
any consistent principle which will
| insure the uniformity of decision es-
sential to Just judgment. 1t is to
| thrust upon the courts burden that
i they have no precedents to enable
| them 10 carry and to give them
power approaching the arbitrary, the
use of which might involve our whole
judicial system in disaster.
In considering violations of the