Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-10-02

| that have offended the law are dis
! iEtegrated sufficiently to- enable COM
petition to have full play. then there
! is no reason why business should
not go 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 gov
eminent in any way they would
be lacking in their duty II they did not
prosecute them. They are under my
/ orders 10 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
respect of such violations of law
do not think it need be long continued
because l 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 atti-
tude of business men toward this step
1 have heard the severest criticism.
from some men engaged in business,
of the antitrust law. 1t is difficult for
me to argue with them. because I don't
understand how their position can be
supported in the slightest. They seem
| to think that there ought to be some
measure making legal the control of
competition and limited monopoly,
some statute enacted which shall es-
tablish line between those monopO-
lies that are reasonable and those that
are not those that are ben
evolent and those that are unconscion-
able. No such line is possible, and the
supreme court has expressly so decid-
ed. Mourning over n 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.
l have seen arguments based upon
! NAi' dNAiAuhf VI lbltiSH
toward great enterprises in which it
is pointed out that they have encour-
aged. fondled, and protected combi-
nations of this character. That is true
There is 4 tendency among some for
! eign governments to encourage what
they call trusts. to take part themselves
/ in the management of trusts, TO fix
! prices. and to depend upon government
| tai control to secure their reasonable
conduct; but such a system with us
| is absolutely impossible, and il might
as well be understood The countries
to which referenc. is made are veer-
| ing toward state socialism. This. in
deed if competition is to disappear. is
the logical escape from the evil of pri-
vate monOpOlies. because if private
companies are to be allowed to man
age everything and fix prices, then
there is every reason why the control
thus exercised by them should be
transferred from them to the govern
ment. and this is state socialism.
Third. With respect to tariff laws
The business of the country to-day
rests upon the protective tariff basis
Every one knows this, and everyone
must be aware that a change of tar
| ifs in such a way that these bust