Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-06-14
judge GR0SSCUP Makes
Commencement ADDRESS
Tells About Working Of the
Sherman Anti. Trust Law
Addresses Graduates Of the
University Of Iowa
(By Associated PresS)

(6y Associated Press)
IOWA CITY, Ia, June 14.-Degrees
were granted to 355 young men and
women at the fifty-first annual COM
mencement of the State University of
Iowa today. Judge Petur Grosscup of
the United States circuit court at Chi
cago delivered the annual commence
ment address.
IOWA CITY, Iowa, June 14.-De-
claring the Sherman act even as now
interpreted an ineffective remedy in
the just complaint of the ordinary
man against monopoles." Judge Peter
S. Grosscup of the United States cir
cult court of appeals, proposed in the
commencement address before the
University OF Iowa today a new meth
cd of dealing with trusts
nopoly as something necessarily here
square the law to the fact-and
then. as a condition to granting cor
porate power at all, reserve the right
to regulate dividends" is the remedy
Judge Grosscup advances.
Judge GrOsscup's discussion of the
remedy proposed by him was prefaced
by a review of the Sherman act, in
which he said:
LAS interpreted prior to May of this
year the Sherman antitrust act was
of the men who happened to consti-
tute the administration at Washing
ton. to destroy such specific mOnopO-
lies and combinations as the admins
tration chose to consider hurtful to
competition in enterprise. Instead,
the Sherman act became a sunken
mine, over which nearly every form
of enterprise had to saif-the fuse
that would set it off, or keep it HARM
less, running direct to the Office OF
the attorney general at Washington.
But will big business continued
Judge Grosscup, with no restraint
hanging over it other than the Sher-
man act as now interpreted, desist
from being brutal? Will one of these
big business enterprises, caught now
and then employing the prohibited
accessory methods and ordered to
as the Standard Oil and
tobacco combinations have been or.
dered to rehabilitate. prevent others
from taking their chances along the
same lines, or from taking chances
along other lines? Reverting to his
the Judge continued:
But to which government, the ma
tional or the state, shall be given the
power to apply the remedy? My an
swer is that, in the case Of the big So
called trusts, such, for instance, as
the packers or the Standard Oil CON-
pany the bulk of whose raw materials
Is dra wn from states other than the
domicile. or the bulk of
whose finished product IS sold in
states other than the company's DOM
cile, thereby bringing their business
INTO interstate commerce, the princi-
pie am urging should be applied by
the national government, through
such processes as will make 1t practi-
:ally compelling that enterprises Of
his kind organize as corporations un-
ler United States laws.
"To that extent, at least, | am for
he new nationalism, by the hand or
/ single sovereignty, and that the su-
oreme sovereignty, can the principle,
t seems to me, be effectively applied
% the big so-called trusts. But this
loes not mean that the smaller man.
and trading corporations
n any given field of enterprise should
20 nationally incorporated. From
hese arises no monopoly. And
where, among these smaller concerns.
combinations arise in unreasonable
restraint of trade, the Sherman act
Is now interpreted would probably
)e sufficient.
"But where should be run the line
If separation, you ask. between those
% be nationally incorporated and
hose left to the states; and how sep
lrate those to whom a restriction as
% dividends Is to be applied. from
hose to whom it is not applied.
,hough nationally incorporated? My
answer Is that national incorporation
should depend on whether the busi-
less involved is chiefly national or
chiefly local a feasible measure of
his being the percentage of the whole
business that is local and the per-
,entage that is not local: and that
whether the restriction as to divi-
lends should apply or not should de-
)end on whether the business, in it's
special field of enterprise, practically
excludes Objective competition or
whether it does not-a feasible meas
ire of this being the percentage Of
he whole business of that field that
S done by the company involved. In
'ther words. if the bulk of the busi-
less of the company is national, let
he nation be the parent and regu-
ator of the corporate advantages un-
er which it is conducted, and if it
bsorbs enough of the business of
he line in which it is engaged to
nable it to throw off effective COM
Atition. let the principle of fair divi-
ends be applied. -,
"The national bureau Of corpora