The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-09-29
> on each ton
SPENCER HEATER co.
Y. Y. once. sol Fifth Ave-. Cor. l7d ~.

W ~ Oll CdCIl lOIl.
SPENCER HEATER CO.
n. Y. once. SOl Fifth Ave. Cor. l3d st
those who understand the operation OF the
present law that the regulative power Of the
Interstate Commerce Commission is SUM
GENTLY great to remedy generally the In jus-
uces TO shippers which gave rise to the de-
mand for legislation. Except the introduce
ton OF limitation AZ to the power Of issuing Z
stocks and bonds I do not think IL wise to
add to the present statutes.
The history Of the operation OF the inter-
state commerce act is interesting and In
structive. Soon after the inception Of the
statute the railroads began to treat the
Interstate Commerce Commission quite
contemptuously. The system OF unlawful
rebates was very widespread among them.
and the neglect OF the law was apparent TO
every one interested in its operation. This
condition aroused the indignation OF the
people and pressed their representatives. on
to further restrictions. Indeed IL gave rise
to prejudice against the railroads, from
which they have suffered in some cases un-
justly. Now. feel that they have become
reconciled to the facts they have come to
recognize that the publicinsists upon regu-
lating their business and seeing to IL through
the Interstate Commerce Commission that
they do not violate the law. I believe and
hope that the spirit of vindictiveness against
these great arteries of public commerce
which the Indignation Of the public naturally
prompted in their representatives is gradu-
ally disappearing.
BOTH CNREAsoNABLE.
Occasionally one hears the complaint that
there is no room for enterprise among rail-
rpads that thero M M ,i IN u, rfh q "
investment and the extension OF their lines:
that somebody else Is running their rail-
roads for them. and that all hope of prosper
GUS business in transportation has disap-
peared. ! think this attitude 10 as unrea
sonablc on the one hand as that OF spite
against a railroad because IL is a railroad Is
on the other. We all have to face the con-
dition that the public insists. and has a right
TO insist. upon the close regulation Of rail-
roads in view Of past evils and Of the danger
Of their recurrence in the future II vigilance
is abated. and that nothing but such regu-
lation will secure the compliance with the
law that the public insists on having. That
regulation Is not restrictive OF wide discre-
ton in railroad management. and there Is
and ought to be sufilcent scope for enter
prise. for close economies in the business Of
the common carrier. and for the securing
of a reasonable profit for the shareholders
to make the railroad business as great a
field as ever for business genius. All re-
forms have not been secured in railroad
management. This takes time Many
rates are still unreasonable or discriminate
ing: but the point l am making is that We
now have effective and impartial machinery
in the present organization and power OF
the commission for effecting those reforms
without additional restrictive legislation.
As TO THE TRUSTS.
Second. With respect to the trusts. I
have elsewhere given my view Of what the
decision Of the Supreme Court Is. II in
effect declares that the antitrust statute
Furnishes every combination or restraint
OF interstate trade that is intended and has
the necessary effect to control prices. eX-
clude competition and establish a partial
or complete monopoly Of any interstate
trade in any merchandise. and that bill of
equity may he filed against the offending
combination or corporation which will
lead TO disintegration OF that combination
II found unlawful and a division of il into
a sufficient number of parts under separate
ownership to insure competition and to
maintain IL by the continuing force OF per-
petual injunction against the resumption
of the unlawful bond and purpose of the
combners Whether IL will be possible
to secure a national incorporation act for
the closer supervision OF those corpora
tionS engaged in interstate trade and for
their greater security when they pursue
business in accordance with law ! am un-
able to say, because the constitutional views
of the present majority in the lower House
are presumably against the increase of
the Federal function with respect to cor
porations. BE that as it may, the business
community now knows or ought TO know
49, u.
hold that competition is impossible under
modern business conditions. but II insists
that it must be given full opportunity for
operation and that any combined effort
affecting interstate trade looking to its sup
preston is contrary TO law. In other words
business must face the necessity of throw
ing away the crutch of combination against
competition in its further progress. When
this rule Is recognized. when the corpora
tions that have offended the law are dis
integrated sufficiently to enable competi-
ton TO have full play, then there is no reason
why business should not go on unhampered
MUST PROSECUTE
Criticism has been uttered in no measured
tone against the activity of the Department
Of Justice in the institution Of prosecutions
and bills of equity under the antitrust law
on the ground that II is hurting business
III IL Inc bWofu uhNS VI Nue EAetutINt 10
enforce the law, and as lone as such com
binations exist and are known to exist
to the law officers OF the Government in
cny way they would be lacking In their duty
II they did not prosecute them. They are
under my orders to 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 Govern
ment In respect OF such violations of law.
do not think II need be long continued
because I believe that the business COM
munity itself is rapidly taking in the effect
of the decisions Of the Supreme Court and
that we may expect a revolution of feeling
on the attitude Of business men toward this
step.
have heard the severest criticism from
some men engaged in business OF the anti
trust law. 1t is dinlcult for me to argue
with them. because don't understand how