The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1911-06-15
NEW METHOD TO
REGULATE TRUSTS
JUDGE GRoSScuP IA DECLARES S
SHERMAN LAW STILL MADE
QUATE FOR PURPOSE.
TO REGULATE DIVIDENDS.
Suggested as Sure Remedy-Not
Complex and Easy of Execution
Favors, NEW Nationaism"
in This Matter.


an ineffective remedy in the just COM
plaint of the ordinary man against
monopolies" Judge Peter S. Grosscup
of the United States Court of Appeals
| proposed in the Commencement ad
dress before the University Of Iowa
today a new method OF dealing with
trusts.
ITO recognize combination and mo-
nopoly as something necessarily here
square the law to the fact, and
then, as a condition to granting cor
porate power at all, reserve the right
to regulate dividends, "is the remedy
Judge Grcgscup advances.
Judge Grosscup's discussion of the
remedy proposed by him was pre-
faced by review of the Sherman act
in which he said
"As interperet ed prior to May Of
this year the Sherman Antitrust act
was believed to be a weapon, in the
hands Of the men who happened to
sopstitute THE administration al
Washington destroy such specific
monopolies and combinations as the
administration chose to consider hurt
ful to competition in enterprise. In
stead the Sherman Act became a sunk
en- mine, over which nearly every
form of enterprise had to sail-the
fuse that would set it off, or keep it
harmless, running direct 10 the office
of the Attorney General at Wash
ington
"But ii will he big business" con
tinued Judge GrosScup, with no re-
straint hanging over II han the sher-
man Act as now Interpreted, desist
! from being brutal? VIII one of these
big business enterprises, caught now
and then employing the prohibited
accessory methods and ordered to
rthabilitate, as the Standard Oil and
obacco combinations have been Or
d5red to rehabilitate, prevent others
from taking their chances along the
same lines, or from taking chances
aloDg other lines? Reverting to his
remedy the judge continued:
But to which government. the ma
ti2nal or state, shall be given the
power to apply the remedy? My an
swer is, that, In case of the big so
called trusts, such, for instance, as
the packers or ne Standard Oil Com
nauY, the bulk of whose raw ma
Iegials is drawn from states Other
taan the c0aQany's doMicile, o. the
X o. whose finished product is solo
states other than the company's
do-nicile, thereby bringing their bust
aesa into interstate commerce, the
principle | am urging should be ap
, rlied by the national government
4, through such processes as will make
1t practically compelling that enter
prises Of this kind organize as cor
porations under the United States
!. laws.
ITO that extent, at least, | am TO
the new nationalism. BY the hand o
single sovereignty, and that the su
y preme sovereignty, can the principle
, it seems to me, be effectively applle'
to the big so-called trusts. But thi
does not mean that the smaller manu-
featuring and trading corporations il
any given field of enterprise shoul'
u be nationally Incorporated. From
these arise no monopoly. And where
among these smaller concerns, CON
: binations arise In unreasonable re
II straint of trade, the Sherman Act a
D. now interpreted would probably b
sufficient.
But where should be run the lin
OF separation, you ask, between thos
to be nationally Incorporated %nt
those left to the states; and HOY
separate those to whom a restrictio
e as to dividends is to be applied, fror
G those to whom ii Is not applied
II though nationally Incorporated, NJ
u answer is that national incorporate
should depend on whether the bus
ness involved is chiefly national Q
i chiefly local-a feasible measure {
this being the percentage of th
q wiole business that is local and tn
percentage that is not local and tht
whether the restriction as to div
dends should apply or not should d
pend on whether the business, In II
Il. special field of enterprise, practical
10 excludes effective competition {
,S whether 1t does not-a feasible mea
'6 ure of this being the percentage ,
VI tcolclul9d ~ litth Ea=s.