The Glenwood post., 1911-12-09

definite and as clear as that which the
Supreme court itself lays down in en-
forcing the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed-Not
Repeal or Amendment.
| see no objection-and indeed l can
see decided advantages-in the enact
ment of law which shall describe and
denounce methods of competition,
which are unfair and are badges of the
unlawful purpose denounced in the
antitrust law. The attempt and pur
pose to suppress competitor by un-
derselling him at price 30 unprofit-
able as to drive him out of business.
or the making Of exclusive contracts
with customers under which they are
required to give UP association with
other manufacturers, and numerous
kindred methods for sitting competi-
tion and effecting monopoly. should be
described with sufficient accuracy in a
criminal statute on the one hand to
enable the government to shorten its
task by prosecuting single misde-
meanors instead of an entire con-
spiracy. and. on the other hand. to
serve the purpose of pointing out
more in detail to the business COM
munity what must be avoided.
Federal Incorporation Recommended.
In a special. message to congress
on January 7. 1910, ventured to
point out the disturbance to business
that would probably attend the disso-
luton Of these offending trusts. l
said:
But such an investigation and pos
sible prosecution of corporations
whose prosperity or destruction affects
the comfort not only Of stockholders
but Of millions of wage earners. en-
ployes. and associated tradesmen must
necessarily tend to disturb the con-
fldence Of the business community.
to dry up the now flowing sources of
capital from its places of boarding,
and produce halt in our present
prosperity that will cause suffering
and strained circumstances among
the innocence many for the faults of
the guilty few. The question which
l wish in this message to bring clear
ly to the consideration and discus
sion Of congress is whether. in order
to avoid such a possible business
danger, something cannot be done by
which these business combinations
may be offered a means. without great
financial disturbance, of changing the
character. organization. and extent OF
their business into one within the
lines of the law under federal control
and supervision. securing compliance
with the antitrust statute.
Generally, in the industrial com
binations called Trusts the prin-
cipal business is the sale of goods in
many states and in foreign markets:
in other words. the interstate and for
eign business far exceeds the busi-
ness done in any one state. This
fact will justify the federal govern
ment in granting federal charter
to such a combination to make and
sell in interstate and foreign com
merce the products of useful manu-
facture under such limitations as will
secure a compliance with the anti
trust law. 1t is possible so to frame
statute that while 1t offers protec-
tion to federal company against
harmful, vexatious, and unnecessary
invasion by the states, 1t shall sub.
ject it to reasonable taxation and
control by the states with respect to
| its purely local business.
Corporations organized under this
act should be prohibited from ac-
quiring and holding stock in other
corporations Except for special rea-
sons. upon approval by the proper
federal authority, thus avoiding the
creation under national auspices Of the
holding company with subordinate
corporations in different states, which
has been such an effective agency in
the creation of the great trusts and
monopolies.
IF the prohibition of the antitrust
act against combinations in restraint
of trade is to be effectivel' enforced.
1t is essential that the national gov
ernment shall provide for the creation
of national corporations to carry on a
legitimate business throughout the
United States The conflicting laws OF
the different states of the Union with
respect to foreign corporations makes
1t difficult If not impossible, for one
| corporation to comply with their re-
| quirements SO as to carry on business
In number of different states
| renew the recommendation of the
enactment of general law providing
for the voluntary formation of cor
porations to engage in trade and COM
merce among the states and with for
eign nations. Every argument which
was then advanced for such a law,
and every explanation which was at
that time offered to possible objec-
tions, have been confirmed by our ex-
perience since the enforcement of
the antitrust statute has resulted in
the actual dissolution of active com
mercial organizations.
1t is even more manifest now than