Bisbee daily review., 1912-08-10
EDITORIAL COMMENTs
[ { [ [ [ . : . q (
oRoZco A BANDIT.
LEGISLATURE AND COURT

tSt. Louis Republic)
 The changes in the Sherman law suggested by the Stanley committee afford an interesting illustration of ] the fact that the boundaries which ] separate the three great departments ] of our government-legis exec utive, iudicial-aTe not rigid, but highly elastic.
 Within recent years this has been clearly apparent in the relations be- ] tween congress and the executive. 1 Under the Cannon despOtism and the ! Aldrich oliGarchy. the national legis- latUre was reaCtionary and unrespon- sive to the popular will. Reform legis- lation was stifed at it's birth The people turned to the president for those things which they failed to ob- tain through congress. For years CeT- tain laws were practically nullified | while others were much extended in operation. through the expansion Of executive powers by means of depart mental regulations. Now the StanIL committees report shows an attempt on the part of the legislature JO do a work which is in character judicial. Such laws as the Sherman law sim ply enunciate a general doctrine ap- pliCable to a particular class Of in stances, leaving the working out Of the details to the activities Of the courts applying the law. The sherman 1 law is exceedingly brief It fOFbids conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade, monopoly, and attempt to
 monopolize, and affixed penalties. This is the type of law which we i expect to find passed by a government | which has an active and cOUrageous | judiciary. The law is a mere base | line. The courts measure out from ] it to the particular instance in the actions at bar.
 ! Now in the case Of the Sherman 1 law, the courts have disappointed the popular expectation. IL has not, in a 1 score of years, built up a body Of | decisions making clear the applica- | ton of the law 10 the methods Of modern Big Business. Hence the Stan | icy committees recommendations. l They represent an effort to make | up for inactive courts by legislation | which works in details rather than in | general principles. The committee at tempts to define unreasonable re straint of trade. Under other circum. i Stances such a definition would have. | by this time. been built up out of the | the successive decisions passing on ] one act after another in suits brought under the law.
 ] The committee essays to fix mathe- ! matically the percentage of a particu- lar industry or business which may ' be controlled by a single corporation | or combination of corporations. II ! recommends legislation against inter- locking directorates-a matter surely covered by the general provisions of | the law, if fearlessly and actively ap- piled.
 ! This attempt Co do through direct
 [ and summary exercise of the law
 making power what usually does it.
 self in the course Of years of applica-
 ton of the law in the courts is an
 intensely interesting experiment. It
 l would be most desirable, if it were
 ' possible, to apportion responsibility
 for the fact that the Sherman law
 has SO far slumbered unenforced.
 Part of the blame rests with the law
 officers of the government Courts
 ! cannot bring cases: they can only
 hear them. No small partt must be
 laid upon the intellectual vagueuess
 and timidity in the realm of practical
 affairs of such decisions as those
 in the Oil and Tobacco cases. The
 i general public must shoulder the rest