Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-01-08
THE PRESIDENTS SPECIAL MESSAGE

nortant combinations and arrange
ments. and suggesting therefore the
wisdom of changing its language by
| limiting its application to serious COM
binations with intent to restrain COM
petition or control prices. reading
of the opinions of the supreme court
however. makes the change unneces-
sary, for they exclude from the opera
ton of the act contracts affecting m
te1State trade in but small and in
cidental way. and apply the statute
only to the real evil aimed at by Con-
gress.
The statute has been on the statute
| book now for two decades. and the
supreme court in more than dozen
opinions has construed it in appllca-
| ton to various phases OF business
combinations and in reference 10 va
rious subjects matter 1t mas applleu
| it to the union under one control OIL
two competing interstate railroads, 10
| Joint traffic arrangements between
several interstate railroads, to private
manufacturers engaged in a PLAIN at
| tempt to control prices and suppress
| competition in a part of the country
including a dozen states, and TO many
other combinations affecting interstate
| trade The value OF a statute which
| is rendered more and more certain It's
meaning by a series of decisions OF the
supreme court furnishes strong rea-
son for leaving the act as it is, to ac-
complish its useful purpose, even
though if it 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 an inVeStiga-
ton by the department of justice.
| through the grand jury or otherwise,
| into the history, organization, and
purposes of all the industrial COM
panies with respect to which there is
any reasonable ground for suspicion
that they have been organized for q
purpose, and are conducting business
on plan which is in violation of the
antitrust law. The work is Il heavy
one, but it is not believed the power Of
| the department of justice, if sufficient
funds are furnished, to carry on the
investigations and to pay the counsel
engaged in the work. But such an in
vestigation and possible prosecution of
corporations whose prosperity or des-
| truction affects the comfort not only
of stockholders but OF millions of wage
earners. employees. and associated
| tradesmen, must necessarily tend to
disturb the confidence of the business
community to dry up the now flowing
sources Of capital from its places of
| boarding, and produce halt in our
present prosperity that will cause suf-
flt Il L ,,1N> TOW fG
among the innocent, many for the
faults of the guilty few. The question
which ! wish in this message to bring
clearly to the consideration and dis
cussion Of Congress is whether in or
der to avoid such a possible business
| danger something cannot be done by
which these business combinations
may be offered a means, without great
| financial disturbance, Of changing the
character organization and extent of
their business into within the lines of
| the law under federal control and
supervision. securing compliance with
| the antitrust statute
"Generally, in the industrial COM
binationS called trusts" the principle
business is the sale of goods in many
states and in foreign markets: in 9TH
or words. the interstate and foreign
business far exceeds the business done
IN any one state. This fact will
justify the federal government in
granting a federal charter to such a
combination tn make and sell in in
terState and foreign commerce. the
products of useful manufacture under
such limitations as will secure a COM
pllance with the antitrust law. 1t is
possible so to frame Il statute that
Wfllle ii offers protection to n federal
company against harmful. vexatious
ana unnecessary invasion by the states
II snail subject it to reasonable taxa
tioh and control by the states, with
respect to its purely local business.
Many people conducting great BUSH
hesSrs have cherished Il hope and a
hellef that in some way or other q line
may be drawn between good trusts
ana bad trusts, and that it is pos
si5'e by amendment to the antitrust
law TO make Il distinction under which
good combinations may be permitted to
organize. suppress competition, con-
troll prices and do it all legally if only
they do not abuse the power by taking
too great profit of the business. They
point with force to certain notorious
trusts as having grown into power
through criminal methods by the use
of illegal rebates and plain cheating
and by various acts utterly vioIatiye
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-
mtted 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
distinction is practicable or can be
introduced into the statute. Certainly
under the present antitrust law no
| such distinction exists. 1t has been
proposed, however. that the word
| reasonable should be made a part Of
the statute. and then that it should
be left to the court to say that what
| is reasonable restraint of trade.
what is reasonable suppression of
| competition. what is reasonable
monopoly. I venture to think that
| this is to put into the hands of the
court a power impossible to exercise
on any inconsistent principle which