The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-09-29

arteries of public commerce which the
Indignation OF the public naturally
prompted in their representatives is
gradually disappearing.
Occasionally one hears the COM
plant that there Ia no room for enter
prise among railroads; that there Is
no inducement to further investment
and the extension Of their lines; that
somebody else Is running their rail-
roads for them: and ali hope Of pros
porous business in transportation has
disappeared. think this attitude Id
as unreasonable on the one hand as
that Of spite against a railroad be-
cause II is a railroad lie on the other.
We all have to face the condition that
the public insists. and has a right to
insist, upon the close regulation Of
railroads In view OF past evils and Of
the danger Of their recurrence in the
future II vigilance is abated, end that
nothing but such regulation will se-
cure the compliance with the law that
the public insists upon having. That
regulation Is not restrictive OF wide
discretion In railroad management
and there Is and ought to be sufficient
scope for enterprise, for close econo-
mics In the business OF the common
carrier, and for the securing of a rea-
sonable profit for the shareholders, to
make the railroad business as great a
field els ever for business genius. All
reforms have not been secured in rail-
road managnAamt. This takes time.
Many rates are still unreasonable or
discriminating; but the point I am
making is that we now have effective
ana impartial machinery in the pres
ent organization and. power of the
commission for Erecting these reforms
without additional restrictive legisla-
tion.
Regulating Trusts.
Second. with respect to the trusts.
I have elsewhere given my view Of
what the decision of the supreme
court is. It In effect declares that the
antitrust statute Furnishes every COM
bination or restraint of Interstate
trade that is intended and has the
necessary effect to control prices, ex-
clude competition, and establish a
partial or complete monopoly Of any
Interstate 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 IL into a.
suftictent number OF parts under sepa-
rate ownership to insure competition
and TO maintain IL by the continuing
force of perpetual injunction against
the resumption OF the unlawful bond
and purpose of the combiners Wheth-
er 1t will be possible to secure a ma
tional incorporation act for the closer
supervision Of those corporations en-
gagged in interstate trade, and for
their greater security when they pur-
sue business in accordance with law.
am unable to say, because the con-
stltutional views of the present ma
jority of the lower house are presum-
ably against the increase OF the feder-
al function with respect to corpora
lions. Be that as it may, the business
community now knows, or ought to
know, where 1t stands. The court de-
clines to hold that competition is Inn
possible under modern business con-
ditions. but insists that it must be
given full opportunity for operation,
and that any combined effort affecting
interstate trade looking to it's sup
preston is contrary to law, In other
words, business must face the neces-
sity of throwing away the crutch Of
combination against competition in its
further progress. When this rule fs
recognized, when the corporations
that have offended the law are disin-
tegrated sufficiently to enable compe-
ution to have full play, then there is
no reason why business should not 60
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 it is hurting business
1t is the sworn duty of the executive
to enforce the law, and as long as such
combinations exist and are known to
exist to the law officers OF the govern
ment in any way they would be lack
ing in their duty If they did not
prosecute them. They are under my
orders to treat the prosecution OF
trusts like the bringing OF any other
suits which are within the scope and
duty of the department OF Justice, and
must decline to admit that there is
any discretion which would enable the
attorney general and his assistants to
stay the hand Of the government In re-
spect of such violations OF law. do
not think 1T need be long continued,
because believe that the business
community Itself Is rapidly taking in
the effect OF the decisions Of the SUI
preme court, and that we may expect a
revolution of feeling on the attitude
Of business men toward this step.
/ have heard the severest criticism,
from some men engaged In business.
of the antitrust law II Is difficult
for me to argue with them. because
| don't understand how their position
can be supported In the slightest. They
seem to think that there ought be some
measure making legal the control OF
competition and limited monopoly.
some statute enacted which shall es-
tablish a line between those mono
poles that are reasonable and those
that are not-those that are benevol-
ent and those that are unconscionable
No such line lie possible. and the SUI
preme court has expressly 80 decid-
ed. Mourning over q condition which
is inevitable is useless, and until they
realize that their views in this regard
must be radically changed their COM
plants must fall upon deaf ears
have seen arguments based upon
the attitude Of foreign governments to-
ward great enterprises in which 1t ID
pointed out that they have encouraged.
fondled and protected combinations OF
this eharartMr That In kY.Yfa vyshn~A