Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-11-23
Chaos in Government and Policy
Toward Trade.
Suit Against steel Trust Called q
vivid ENample-Stop straugiinx
Business-Present Law made.
quate.

tho Outlook under the caption, "'rhe
Trusts. the People. and the Square Deal
The article follows:
THE suit against the steel trust by
the government has brought wildly be-
fore our people the need OF reducing to
order our chaotic government policy as
regards business. Az president. in mes
sa.;es TO Congress Il repeatedly called the
attention of that body and of the public
10 the inadequacy of the antitrust law
by itself to meet business conditions and
secure justice to the people. and to the
further fact that ii might. IL left unsup-
plemented by additional legislation, work
mischief. with no compensating advan-
tage; and | urged as strongly as ! knew
how that the policy followed with rela-
tlon to railways In connection with the
interstate commerce law should be fol-
lowed by the national government as re-
CARDS all great business concerns; and,
therefore, that, as a first step. the pow
ers OF the bureau of corporations should
be greatly enlarged. or else that there
should be created n governmental board
or commission, with powers somewhat
similar to those of the Interstate Come
merce Commission but covering the
sive OF transportation (Which should, by
law. be kept wholly separate from ordin-
airy Industrial business. all common
ownership of the industry and the rail-
way being forbiddcn). In the end have
always believed that it would also be
necessary to give the national govern
ment complete power over the organlza-
ton and capitalization of all business
HE QUOTES GARFIELD.
"A member OF my cabinet, with whom,
even more than with the various attor-
news general, I went over every detail
of this trust situation. was the time
secretary of the interior, Mr. James R.
Garfield. He writes me as follows con-
corning the suit against the Steel corpor-
alton:
Nothing appeared before the House
committee that made me believe we
were deceived by Judge Gary.
This | think, Is a case that shows
clearly the difference between destr,c-
tive litigation and constructive legisle-
ton. ] have not vet seen a full copy of
the governments petition but our papers
Give nothing that indicates any kind Of
unfair or dishonest competition such as
existed in both the Standard Oil and to-
bacco cases. As ] underst and it, the COM
petitors Of the Steel company have stead
itv increased in strength during the last
six or seven years. Furthermore, the
per cent. of the business done by the Steel
corporation has decreased during that
time AS YOU will remember. at our first
conference with Judge Gary the Judge
stated that 1t was the desire and purpose
OF the company to conform to what the
government wished, II being the purpose
of the company absolutely to obey the law
both in spirit and letter. Throughout the
time that l had charge of the investiga-
ton and while we were in Washington
! do not know of single instance where
the Steel company refused any informa-
ton requested. but, on the contrary, aid
ed in every possible way our investiga-
ton.
The position now taken by the govern
ment is absolutely destructive of legit!-
mate business. because they outline no
rule of conduct for business of any mag
nitude. It is absurd to say that the court
can lay down such rules. The most the
courts can do is to find az legal or H.
legal the particular transactions brought
before them. Hence. after years of tedi-
ous litigation there would be no clear cut
rule for future action.
WAS NOT MISLED.
Before taking up the matter in its
large aspect, ] wish To say one word as
TO one feature of the government suit
against the Steel corporation. One of
the grounds for the suit Is the acouisj-
ton by the Steel corporation OF the Tenn
essee Coal and Iron company; and II has
been alleged on the authority Of the gov.
eminent officials engaged in carrying or
the suit, that as regards this transaction
| was mised by the representatives OF
the Steel corporation, and that the fact.
were not accurately or truthfully laid be
fore me. This statement is not correct.
II believed at the time that the fact,
In the case were as represented to m,
on behalf of the Steel corporation. ant
my further knowledge has convinced m,
that this was true. I believed at the tim,
that the representatives of the Steel cor
poration told me the truth as to thu
change that would be worked in the per
contage Of the business which the pro
posed acquisition would give the Stee
corporation, and further inquiry has con
WINGED me that they did so. | was no
Irsled
The representatives of the Steel cor
poration told me the truth as TO wha
the effect Of the action at that tim
would be, and any statement that wa
mlsled or that the representatives o
the steel corporation did not thus tel
me the truth as to the facts OF the cas-
is In itself not IN accordance with tn
truth. In the Outlook OF August 10 las
| gave in full the statement I had mad
10 the investigating committee Of tn
House of Representatives on this matter
This statement Is accurate, and | reaffri
everything therein said. not only as {
what occurred, but also as TO my belle
in the wisdom and propriety of my actio
indeed, the action not merely was wis
and proper. but it would have been
calamity from every standpoint had
failed to take 1t,
THE FACTS STATED
"On page 1877 OF the printed report O
the testimony before the committee wi
be found Judge Gary's account Of In
meeting between himself and Mr.. Eric
and Mr. Root and myself This accoun
states the facts accurately 1t has bee
alleged that the purchase by tho Stee
corporation of the property OF the Tenn
essee Coal and Iron company gave tn
Steel corporation practically monopol
of the southern iron ores-that is, of tn
iron ores south Of the Potomac and tn
Ohio. Ny information, which I hay