The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-11-25
The Trust Doctors

broad minded enough 10 admit that
the Chinese penalty Of beheading for |
those who restrain trade is entire
" too extreme" for our own country. |
This is encouraging. At least, there |
will be no heads chopped OFF If the
democrats secure full control of the |
government. But Mr.. Henry's bill is
still so severe in its provisions as to
make 1t impossible TO see in the pre-
sent situation any hope of rational
and permanent solution of the prob
lem. From now until the next presi-
dent is elected there win probably be
more political trumpeting than
statesmanlike lawmaking. Certain
ly, if the Texas congressmans bill
is the solution to be offered by the
democratic party in Congress this
winter, it does not begin to be so
sensible as Mr. Bryan's federal lie
ense plan as outlined in the Denver
platform-the chaos already existing
in relation 10 this question cannot
fail to be intensified.
On all sides, the trust doctors are
busy working up and Offering their
remedies Among them is the usual
proportion OF quacks If the patient
We're handed over to them all for
kind OF composite treatment, we
should soon be attending the funeral
OF business in America. Meanwhile,
there are real developments. The
action of the attorneys for the beef
packers, who have been fighting Grim
| inal suits under the antitrust law for
nearly ten years, In carrying the case
under habeas corpus proceedings to
the United States supreme court on
constitutional question, should re-
| suit in an early determination by the
highest tribunal of the validity of the
| criminal section of the federal stat
ute The procrastinatlon in this par
! ticular case has been scandalous, yet
in view of the Standard oil and tobac-
| co trust decisions, one must admit
that the indicted beef packers may
fairly claim that a serious doubt has
been raised as to the constitutional
right Of the government to prosecute
them for crime. There are many ex-
cellent lawyers who believe that the
criminal section OF the antitrust law,
was emasculated when the supreme
court, in effect, decided that only
undue" OF unreasonable" restraint
of trade was unlawful A criminal
statute should be so clear and pre-
else that citizens could be in little
no doubt when they violated 1t. II
restraint OF trade may be lawful
when II is reasonable, is II just TO
leave what is unreasonable so far
underlined in the statute that the
citizen cannot surely know when and
where crime begins? Undoubtedly
these beef packers merit no sympa-
thy, for their offenses were extreme
in their nature but the step they
have now taken should a t least aid
in clearing the air. and in delimit-
ing the more definitely and precisely
the. boundaries of the present law.
How far the law fails to satisfy the
country as a whole is clear from the
fact that il Is still more OF less in
. the twilight zone OF judicial interpre.
tation after 20 years of existence
that its criminal penalties have new
er been successfully applied and are
| even uOn unutl NOnbNlAulAOHdi at
tack and that nearly all polItica. par
ties and leaders propose amendments
or the enactment Of a new law. Fun.
damentally, there are two main decis
ions OF public opinion-one aiming at
the utter destruction OF the trusts
and the restoration OF old.time con,
ditions OF competition in industry
the other aiming at the frank accep
lance Of the economic principle OF
combination in industry, under gov
eminent regulation. So far as we
can form an opinion from some obser
walton of the current discussion, the
former school is gradually losing
ground among those disinterested
people Of intelligence whose views
viii ultimately prevail. The feeling
is gaining strength that big business
has come to stay and that the sensi
bic thing to do is TO place IL under
such direction and restraint, through
the exercise Of governmental author
ity, that 1t will promote the public
welfare rather than develop oppres
sive monopolies, pile up private for
tunes gained by antisocial methods
and arouse popular passions and
class wars.
Those who agree on this general
proposition. however. are sure tc
disagree as TO how far government
regulation Of great Industrial corpor
ations should 20. President Var
Hise OF the university OF Wisconsin
favors government regulation OF pri
ces even when corporation has nc
monopoly. yet has marked econ
omic advantage" for any cause. Mr.
Roosevelt, in his striking article II
this weeks Outlook seems more con
sentative saying
This (governmen) control should
II necessary be pushed in extrem,
cases to the point of exercising con
troll over monopoly prices as rates
on railways are now controlled; al
though this is not power tina
should be used when Il is possible {,
avoid It.
The Republican. while disposed I,
concede that there must be new
solution OF the trust problem differ
ent from the crude one now embed
led In the present law, and that
place must be conceded in our mod
ern economic system to the principle
OF cooperation and combination n
industry, must still maintain tina
| nothing htfharfn H.y.i.v..l L..