The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-29

indignation of the public naturally
prompted in thrii Representatives ia
gradually disappearing.
Occasionally one hears the com.
plant that there Is no room for enter.
prise an"ng railroads: that there Is
no inducesnent to further Investment
and the extension of their lines; that
somebody else Is running their rail-
roads for them: and that all hone OF
prosperous business in TRANSPORTATION
has disappeared. think this atti.
.ude 10 as unreasonable on the one
hand as that of spite against a rail-
road because 1t is a railroad Is on
the other. We all have to face the
conoiuon that the public insists. and
mas q right to insist. upon the close
regulation of railroads In view of past
evils and OF the danger of their re-
currence in the future II vigilance is
abated. and that nothing but such reg
ulation VIII secure the compliance
Win the law that the public insists
on having That regulation is not re-
strictivc OF wide discretion In railroad
management, and there is and ought
TO De sufficient scope sor enterprise.
LOT ciose economies in the business
OF the common carrier. and for the
securing OF a reasonable profit for
the shareholders. to make tho railroad
business as great a field as ever FOR
business genius All reforms have not
zen secued In railroad management.
RMS takes time. Many rates arc still,
unreasonable or discriminating. but
the point am making is that we
now nave effective and Impartial ma
chinery In the present organization
ana power OF the commission for ef-
'ectins those reforms without addi-
uonai restrictive legislation
View of the Trusts.
Second With respect to the trusts.
have elsewhere given my view Of
what the decision of the suprem.
Court is. 1t In effect declares that
the antitrust statute Furnishes every
combination or restraint OF interstate
trade that is Intended and has the
necessary effect TO control prices. ex-
Guide competition. and establish a par.
tial or complete monopoly of any in
terstate trade in any merchandise, and
that bill OF equity may be filed
against the offending combination or
corporation which will lead to disin-
tegration of that combination. II
found unlawful, and a division OF n
into a sufficient number VI parts unde-
separate ownership to insure compett-
ton and to maintain 1t by the con-
tnuing force of perpetual Injunction
against the resumption of the unlaw-
ful bond and purpose Of the COM
Diners. Whether It will be possible
to secure a national incorporation act
for the closer supervision of those
corporations engaged in Interstate
trade. and for their greater security
when they pursue business in ac
cordance with law, ] am unable 10
say. because the constitutional views
OF the present majority in the lower
HousN are presumably against the in
crease OF the Federal function with
respect to corporations. Be that as
1t may. the business community now
knows. or ought to know where IL
stands The court declines TO hold
that competition is Impossible under
modern business conditions. but It In
sists that 1T must re given full op-
portunity for operation. and that any
combined effort affecting Interstate
trade looking to Its suppression is
contrary to law Iii other words, bus
mess must face the necessity of
throwing away the crutch OF combi-
nation against competition in it's fur
Their progress. When this rule .s
recognized. when the corporations that
have offended the law are dislnte-
grated sufficiently to enable COMPETE
ton to have full p)1y, then there is
no reason why business should not
go on unhampered.
Criticism has been uttered in no
measured tone against the activity of
the Department Of Justice in the in
stitution of prosecutions and bills of
equity under the antitrust law, on
the ground that 1t Is hurting business