The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-09-19
Mr.. BRANDEI'S
WOULD REMARK
That the President Propos-
es to Ignore Twenty Years
of Experience
With the Sherman Law
Treats That Law as Final
While La Toilette Would
Perfect That Law.
BY United Press Wire.

Boston, Sept. 19.-Declaring that
the president demonstrates by his
trusts speech that he has ignored
the experience of twenty years with
the sherman law and that on the
other hand Senator La Toilette has
taken advantage OF his experience,
Louis ID. Brandeis today gave the fol-
lowing statement exclusively to the
United Press:
BY Louis ID. Brandeis.
A comparison of the presidents
speech on the antitrust law with tho
La Toilette bill introduced August 10,
1911, places in striking contrast the
mere lawyer with the constructive
statesman.
The president and Senator La Fol-
lette start with the same premises.
namely: that the maintenance of COM
petition is desirable and that the de-
cisions of the supreme court in the
Standard oil and Tobacco cases are
right. But the president ignoring 20
years experience with the Sherman
law, treats that act as final. while La
Toilette utilzes his experience to per-
feet the act. r
There are three striking defects in
the sherman law. First. even when
enforced as In the Standard oil and
Tobacco cases. it, almost, prevents
future VIOLATIONS of the law. for II
leaves the violators In possession of
the spoils illegally gained and leaves
the victims, the crushed competitors
and the public which has been SUBJ
Jected to extortionate demands with
out "A remedy for the wrongs they
have suffered. The La Toilette bill
undertakes TO remedy this grave de-
feet by providing that when in II pro-
ceedlng by the government a trust
has been declared Illegal, those who
have suffered from the illegal acts
may prove their damages as an in
cident of the same proceedings, and
without having undertaken the i'm
possibility of litigating anew, as un-
der the present law, the question of
iliegality.
Second. the Sherman law as inter-
preted by the supreme court leaves in
vast Uncertainty the question as to
what in any case will be deemed a
reasonable restraint. The La Toilette
bill utilizing the experience of twenty
years. specifies a series of acts which
in practice has proven TO be unrea-
sonable as destroying competition
Such acts as they are declared unrea-
sonable. thereby giving certainty and
effectiveness to the law. Examples
of such practices are that of refusing
to supply customer, If he purchases
also from the trusts competitor, or
cutting prices in a particular district
to kill competitor as was so often
practiced by the Standard Oil.
Third. TO secure compliance with
the Sherman law involves now a
heavy burden because even II proven
that the defendants have combined to
restrain trade, the government has
the further obligation of proving that
that restraint is unreasonable. Utiliz-
ing the experience gained by years
of an attempt to enforce the law, the
La Toilette bill provides that where
the combination to restrain trade ex-
lists the burden of proof that 1t is
reasonable shall rest upon those who
assert the fact.
This provision is similar to the one
introduced by the progressives in the
interstate commerce commissions law
under which the railroads, seeking an
advance in rates had the burden of
proof to show that the proposed in
crease Is not unreasonable.