The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-09-18
THE PRESIDENT


| IL not. on the other hand, condemn
the Tobacco Trust, of much later ORR
gin and framed under the advice of
cunning counsel for the very pur-
poses of evading the condemnation
of the statute and at the same time
securing and enjoying the monopoly
tne trainers of the statute Intended
to prevent and punish?
Let me renew again the invitation
to any of the legal imaginations and
state the facts of "a case not con-
demned within the rule of construc-
tion put upon the statute Iy the SUI
preme court. but included within their
construction of It. which reasonable
men would think 1T wis. or proper to
make criminal.
Now, desire to call attention TO a
very broad distinction that many per-
sons have failed to draw or perceive
between reasonable construction OF
the statute which the supreme court
has insisted upon and the introduce
tion of the word reasonable" in the
tatutc so as to lead to result by
which combinations for the purpose
of restraining trade with Wow to
controlling prices and maintaining a
monopoly could he held to he reason
able and thus lawful. Until the deci-
sion of the supreme court in these last
| two cases there was a clearly defined
hoTu in the minds of many business
men who had reached the conclusion
that it was impossible to conduct
business on free competitive basis,
and that it was necessary to secure
monopolistic control of prices and
/ competition in order to make busi-
ness reasonably, profitable, that in
some way or other the statute could
be construed exclusion OF competition
and control OF prices. They had in
their minds the thought that in some
way or other d standard could he
set by which If those who enjoyed
the monopoly and the restraint of
competition and the control of prices
did not abuse their power to the point
of seeking from public exorbitant pro-
: fits, their ARRANGEMENTS could be held
to be only reasonable and not with
| in the statute or punshabl, Ly law.
IN my message Of January Z, 1910. on
the interstate commerce and anti
trust laws and federal incorporation,
! used this Languages:
! Many people conducting great bust
nesses have cherisher a hope and a
belief that in some way or other
line may be drawn between good
trusts" and bad trusts" and that II
is possible by amendment to The anti
trust law to make a distinction under
which good combinations may be per-
mitted to organize. suppress competl-
tion. control prices, and do 1t all le-
| gally If only they do not abuse the
power by taking too great profit
cut of the business. They point with
force TO certain notorious trusts as
having grown into power through
criminal methods by the use of IL
legal rebrtes and plain cheating, and
urge the establishment of some ,e-
gal line of e'paration by which
criminal trustsY of this kind can be
punished. and they. on the other
hand ,-be permitted under the law to
carry on their business. Now the
public, and especially the business
public. ought to rid themselves of
the idea that such distinction Is
practicable or can be introduced in
TO the statute. Certainly under the
present antitrust law no such dis
| tlnction exists. 1t has been proposed
however that the word reasonable"
should be made a part Of the statute.
and then that 1t should be lett to the
court To say what is reasonable
I estralnt of trade, what Is a Reason
able suppression of competition, what
is a reasonabla monopoly. l venture
TO think that this is to put into the
hands Of the court a power impossible
to exercise on any consistent principle
which will insure the uniformity of
decision essential to just judgment.
IL Is To thrust upon the courts bur-
den that they have no precedents 10
enable them to carry, end to give
them power approaching the arbi-
trary, the abuse of whicn might in
volye our whole judicial system in
| disaster.
This paragraph has been quoted and
spread on the record of the senate on
the motion of a senator who con
sidered this to be at variance with
the decisions Of the supreme court,
Instead of being at variance, 1t is
In exact accord with those decisions.
Again from those who have given
up free competition as an economic
| iorce that ought TO be encouraged or
enforced and who are utterly op-
posed to the spirit of the antitrust
law we have frequently heard the
| question, We'll. suppose you convict
those large Combinations under the
statute, what are YOU going to do
about 1t? You can perhaps, send
some men to the loenitd1tiary for
creating these combinations which
have eheapened the cost of produc-
tion and given you most of your for
elgn trade and much OF your pros
Gritty hut what are you going to
do with the capital invested the plant,
ana the organization2 You can con-
fiscate II and ruin your country by
panic but you can't divide such
combinations into their component
parts aggain, for the lines Of division
have disappeared into a common own
Iership.'
The court has mot the Issue and