The Washington times., 1911-09-26
MR.. WICKERSHAM'S SHERMAN
LAW POLICY.

The Times notes with satls1actlon
Mr.. Attorney General Wickersham's
confirmation Of this papers suggestion
that business need not be unduly wor-
ried about the Administrators pro-
gram for enforcement of the Sherman
antitrust act. The chief law officer
makes clear that the Government does
not intend to run amuck. 1t does not
want to make the transaction of bust
ness more difficult. 1t has no purpose
to put obstacles and difficulties in the
way of business men or organizations.
The Attorney General said among
other things:
If in anticipation of action by the
Government those in control OF COM
bination should work out a plan OF
separation to avoid illegal conditions,
the department would necessarily give
very careful consideration to the plan
so as to avoid hostile action If possible.
The department is not in
augurating a campaign against the
business interests or an tndtscriminate
attack on all large prosperous con-
Germs. The care and caution
with which the law officers are proceed
ing to the examination Of each case
should be a guarantee that the depart
ment Is proceeding to enforce the law
with care not to unnecessarily tnture
any interests.
There is every reason to accept the
Attorney Generals assurances at their
face value. Mr.. Wickersham is not a
man to indulge reckless or extreme
methods. He knows the seriousness to
business-to all business, legitimate as
well as other-of ill-considered and
precipitate procedure. Business is not
unlike a woman's reputation. Sus-
picion is too apt to be accepted as
equivalent to conviction.
1t cannot be too constantly kept in
mind that, as The Times suggested a
day or two ago, the Sherman law con-
Germs itself only with the form of
corporate organization, with reference
to the purpose of monopolizing. The
law is not concerned about capitalize
ton. 1t provides no method of ascer-
tanning the relation of capitalization TO
value. 1t does not seek to make the
two figures identical. If there is dis
Indignation of any corporation the law
cannot assume to doctor the conditions
in this regard. No security which as
sumes to represent any element of
value is designed to be wiped out of
existence; its form may be changed.
1t is worth while in this connection
to append the recent observations of
this paper to the remarks just quoted
from the Attorney Generals interview.
1t will be observed that the two are
altogether consistent, and that the one
expression logically supplements the
other. The Times said:
The law officers are concerned with
the form Of organization, having regard
particularly to the question of monopo-
LIKING. The Sherman act, 1t must be
borne in mind, does not concern itself
with capitalization. 1t provides no test
of reasonableness in that regard, and
no Federal statute has assumed author
ity to prevent, much less to correct. al
legged excuses. A commission has in
control of railroad capitalization. It
will report in the near future. But II
will not be concerned with tndustrials;
as to the railroads 1t is generally be-
lieved that not much water will be
found to exist in their securities.
The Supreme Court decisions in the
Standard OIL and Tobacco cases Justify
Of serious fears Of stock and bond
holders as to any serious effort to
scale down their holdings. 1t Is I'M
likely that such effect will be caused
under existing laws as to other cor
porations, even If reorganization Is I'M
dertaken. Business men and investors
would seem unduly concerned about
possible effects of reorganizations that
at most are only vaguely rumored.
The Attorney General entirely justi-
fled the confidence which The Times
has felt, that fundamental business
conditions are not to be disturbed
gravely by anything impending. The
business of producing and refining oil,
or manufacturing and selling tobacco,
has not been interfered with by the
court decisions, and the tendency of
reorganizations. People are still get
ting kerosene and gasolene at prices
which are causing no worriment; the
man who chews tobacco is still max
ing himself as much a nuisance as
ever. Court decisions have not inter
fered with these conditions. Other
court decisions or reorganizations will
not interfere with other lines of bust
ness to an extent which need cause
grave misgiVings.