New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-11-02
BEGINNING All OVER AGAIN.

BEGINNING am OlE Auhf-''
President Taft hit the weakness oi
REPRESENTATIVE Littleton and all other
advocates of repeating the Sherman ACT
and starting out afresh to ieglsia'e loI
the control of business when he said az
the dinner Of the Pittsburgh Chahioei
of Commerce. What does MT, lhttieloii
"ofrer? Nothing. He proposes another
..statuto which would he subject 10 liie
same Interpretation as this one II
X imnossible for = statute governing so
Icomulicated a subject as interstate com
mc,re to be specific and yet possess
rnv vitality. 1t cannot go i'll detall lil'o
fine acts that vii he permitted anu
those that will he forbidden ana sun
lie effective If one were passed 10 'ahe
fin, place of the Sherman act the oiu
comnlaint that no one knew what II
neant would he heard and the process
Of court Interpretation would begin All
over again. In fact. over any snch
statute as Mr. Littleton appears TO nave
in mind the Sherman act would have
enc advantage in respect to definitcness.
The phrase restraint of trade is one
familiar 10 the law. II has been tue
subject of many decisions, for the Sher-
man act has been held To he in erect
statutory embodiment I'm federal JurlS-
prudence of the common law against
trade conspiracics and monopolieS.
How general any statute would he
that might take its place in harmony
with Mr.. Iittleton's suggestion of clean
in.y the slate and starting ont atrcSh Is
shown 10y the beautiful gencralities in
Mr.. Littleton's own remarks about what
the statute should contain. According
10 the Congressman the Sherman ac,
has sot all industry To cropping in the
Gark." So would his proposed brand
pew statute upon which the courts had
never rendered an opinion, If it con-
taired any language broad enough 10
forbid any practice by which monopolicS
RAW he created and competition edf1ed.
And without broad prohibition the stat
ute would bc ineffective. There are so
many ways in which restraint OF trade
may no carried on, so many gulses uh-
der which Il monopoly may present IT
self. and so many means of cXtortion
ami oppression which may he reSolted
to. that it would he out Of the question
for Congress to attempt TO prohibit each
and every possible enc Of them speciii-
cally. All legislation that is honestly
meant to prevent the practices at which
! il CstenSibly aims has TO employ some
where sweeping language so aS 10 meet
the ingenuity of the criminally inclined.
Those who wish TO defcat the purposes
of a prohibition always demand that it
may be made specific, $50 that they can
tell exactly what IS forbidden" The
gamblers in this state want the law
against boOkmaking to he specific, 70
define exactly what acts constitute
| bookmaking. Once it IS thus defined
tley are confident that they can find a
way of bookmakinC that the legislators
overlooked. So it always is with laws
that attempt to be specific.
And if after lot of specific prohibi-
tons in Mr. Littleton's new statute
came general prohibition of the prac-
tees Ivy which interstate trade may be
monOpOlized, then Interpretation would
begin all over again and industry would
be once more "in the dark The process
Of Interpretation Is inevitable if q stat
ute has any vitality and Is adapted 70
meet changing conditions Nor is it
such an evil as Mr.. Littleton and his
fellows would make out 70 illustrate
the emptiness of the cry against the
Sherman act on the score of its requir
ing judicial Interpretation some one The
other day called attention TO the fact
that the courts Of the country have
been interpreting the federal ConStitu-
ton for more than a century and are
still at it. Is that proof that the
! Constitution should he abandoned and
flat we should begin all over again?