Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-05-23

Oly,s 1t rWOul0 tuUt az q pksaSskSeAA a'o'S~S|>
seem that the big combinations have
ing followed by. Chief; Justice White In
the Standard OH casa.
No sefiosS1 attempt TO modify the
Sherman. law will probably be made in
congress In the extra session. That ~,
thu matter will be carried only to the
point OF Introducing bills but It will
BE impossible to. got far with them. The
reason sts that everybody nearly shrinks
from plunging into this great subject
IN hot weather. It might be done in
4he%:house but the senate has Its hands
full with reciprocity. and direct cleo
tion Of senators and also with the Lori
mer case.
cummins eos Start: Bail.
hut next winter. the,aball will be set
nollinr without, delay. Senator Cum.
minis plans to Introduce his bill for
the modification Of the first section OF
the law early In the regular session
and to use every effort to get 1T con-
sidered. iIIe has nearly completed this
hill. which Ii designedsto tighten up
tha law and get rid Of the doubtful
term. restraint of trade" This bill.
with a number of others that have
been or win be introduced, will AFFORD
the Judiciary yseommittecap OF work
to wrestle with. Senator Cumnins
plans not merely to provide in the
amended measure he proposes thaS
competitive conditions shall be pre-
served and not unlawfully interfered
with but he also provides for the gov
ernment' SPECULATION Of the great inter-
state corporations. He would nave
goyernment control of capitalization.
complete publicity andsdrasttc resu-
lation IN: other respects.
Senator. Cumnins In a recent speech
at Newark before meeting OF New
Jersey progressives defined his views
OF the Sherman law. He pointed out
that there were three schools OF
Thought with respect to the matters
touched by that law. In tho first place,
there was tho standpat element
Of the country that would inn
pose no restrictions on business;
IN the second place, there
were those who thought combination
and monopoly q good thing II it were
rsKufateds and IN the third place there
were those who wanted to preserve as
Tar aS possible competitive conditions.
ne sa1d II the Sherman law was to
mean anything It must directly pro-
vide for the preservation Of acompetf-
tive conditions.
Interesting Sidslieht.
An interesting sidelisht on the view
which before the recent supreme court
decision obtained in the senate Of the
United States on the Sherman law is
shed BY the report given out by the
senate 1ndiciary committee In jan
uary. 1903. This report was against
the national Incorporation measure
then proposed Senator Nelson wrote
It. After reciting q number Of de-
cisions sof the suprame court and the
state ,1o6Pts - well as, the lower fed
eral courts, Senator Nelson said:
'The AoStrine and effect Of all these
cases iss:that any agreement or COM
9tions directly affecting, the welfare
of the public, by sitting, competition
md breeding monopoly In trade and
commeroe.s Ii contrary to public policy
ana invalid, ana that the courts In
such .canee will not undertake to meas
are the ASgree Of the sitting Of COM
petition or the degree Of the monopoly.
IN such c&Ses the seasonableness Of the
restraint Y In not measured or consid-
ored. - 80 The reasonableness Of such
contracts or combinations was never
made question under the common
law. because they were deemed to be
contrary TO public policy in this that
they stIled competition and bred
monop0ly and. on that account, ware
deemed sf6 - inyAlid. =
10 ndztiH t-06iy hat but the commit