Evening star., 1911-05-30
none GO TO PRISON.
Only One Jail Sentence Under
Anti Trust Act.
LAW ITSELF TO BLAME
Trial Justices Are Given the Option
Of Sending Offenders
to Cells.

Only one Jail sentence under the Sher-
man antitrust law since 1t was passed
In 1896, and. in that case, no time"
done.
This striking fact IL brought out by
the renewal of talk, since the tobacco
trust decision yesterday, of criminal
prosecutions of the oil and tobacco
trust officials. and by the resolution of
Senator Pomerene of Ohio. which pass
ed the United States Senate the other
day. asking Attorney General Wicker
sham to tell the Senate what criminal
prosecutions have been begun against
the Standard Oil Company or against
the Rockefeilers and their associates.
The only instance of q prison sentence
under the Sherman law was. ii is as
serted. in the case Of the United States
aginst the Naval Stores Company and
others, in 1909. The defendants were
indicted and found guilty Of monopoliz-
ing and restraining interstate trade un-
der the Sherman law. and Judge Shep-
pard, United States circuit judge. south
ern district Of Georgia, sent two OF the
defendants to jail, as well as fning
them and three others 1880. The de-
PENDANTS have taken the case on a
and they are waiting for that court
to say next fall or winter whether or
not they will have to go to jail.
Wickersham Not to Blame.
That there has been only one jail SEN
tence cannot be charged to the Depart
ment OF Justice. certainly not to At
torney General Wickersham.
The trouble is, It is said in the Sherman
law. That law gives the trial judges the
option Of imposing prison sentence: that
is, the judge may send an individual con-
victed under the antitrust act to jail
IL he likes. but he does not have to do SO.
And all the judges, with one exception.
have stopped short Of jail sentences.
The Sherman law says that on convic-
ton for directly restraining interstate
trade the sentence may be imprisonment
not exceeding one year, or by both fine
and Imprisonment, in the discretion of
the court" And the judges In exercising
their discretion have leaned to mercy.
Another reason for no Imprisonment
sentences under the Sherman law is, 1t
Is said, that it is difficult to fasten the
responsibility on an individual connected
with the corporation. Such individual
Of higher authority. Some managing
officer, for instance, may, in violating the
Sherman law, either be obeying q specific
order Of. say. the board OF directors, or
pcIA0pS no Is only IIyHG TO make II
possible to cut some big dividend melons.
. Senator Kenyon Of Iowa, who was until
very recently chief trust buster" for the
government, knows Of this reluctance on
the part Of the trial judges to send trust
ofncials down; and he has also seen the
difficulty OF getting corporation indi-
viduals
Purpose Of Kenyon Bill.
The very purpose Of his bill, introduced
in the Senate on the Sth instant. is
to leave the Judge no alternative than
to jail the convicted defendants. In his
proposed amendment to the Sherman law
it is noted. how he Is feeling for the
directors:
Every person so convicted, whether
acting individually or as director OF a
corporation, shall be punished by impris-
onment not exceeding one year" etc.
There is no option for the judges here.
In this connection, Senator Kenyon is
reported as saying Immediately after the
decision in the oil case:
II am strong now as ever for my
law. ! still believe that we should pro-
vide that those guilty OF violating 1t
should be punished by confinement. II Is
not sufficient. in my judgment. to limit
the obnoxious corporations and combina-
tions found guilty Of violating the law"
No Criminal Prosecution.
When Attorney General wickersham
comes to answer Senator Pomerene's
question. he will have to say, 1t Is
thought, that neither he nor any other
Attorney General has ever prosecuted.
under the Sherman lsw, the Standard
OIL Company or its officials criminally.
nor the tobacco people.
But in his report to the United States
Senate, 1t Is suggested by antitrust law
yers, that he could ask some pertinent
questions himself. As for instance:
What's the use OF instituting criminal
proceedings against the Standard OH Of
flcials under the Sherman law? All We
would get would be fnes. and these
fines-that is. fines within reason, any
be initiated by the Rockefeller ring-O.
K, dear people. please pay.
Didn't the government try criminal
proceedings galore against the Standard
Oil Company under the E1kins law when
the Standard was holding the railroads
of the country up for freight rates lower
than the common herd gotf Think Of
those indictments running up In the
thousands and don't forget that $9.OOO.-
600 fine!
There were no jail sentences. how
ever. The Judges merely said, Fine
him."
Moreover, II Is suggested. the Attorney
General could point to his record to show
that he does begin criminal proceedings
under the Sherman law whenever he con-
siders such a course the most effective
or whenever the evidence warrants 1t,
and I'm support Of the claim could call
attention to this list Of criminal pros
ecutions In 1910 and SO far In 1911:
Paper trust. New York: cotton corner
trust. New York; beef packers trust.
Chicago, Savannah and Boston; brick
trust, Chicago: window glass trust. Pitts
burg: bathtub trust. Detroit: milk trust.
Boston.
The government has won the two cases
SO far decided-namely. the paper trust
and the window glass trust cases. These
combinations have been heavily fined and
the latter broken up.
Could Have Been Prosecuted.
OF course, now that the Supreme Court
has spoken In the oil and tobacco trust
cases, It II known legally that the Rookie
feller and Duke people could at one time