The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1912-07-23
STANLEY TRUST
; BILL IS RADICAL
Far Reaching Changes in
Sherman Law Are
Proposed.
APPROVED BY WILSON
individuals May Prosecute
and Use Decisions in
Damage Suits.
TO END UNCERTAINTY
Thirty Per Cent. Control Is
Made Presumptive Evil
dence Of Monopoly.

WisHrNGroN, July 22.-The legislative e
concentrations Of the majority men,
bers of the Stanley steel committee.
which were completed to-day. are
radical beyond anticipation.
The committee proposes the most far
; reaching changes in the Sherman anti
trust law that have ever been laid be-
particularly interesting in view Of the
fact that Woodrow Wilson il under
stood to have approved 1t. The bill
ofered by the Stanley committee. as
7 has been already told in these de-
spatchcs. proposes that individuals shall
have the power to bring suits in equity
for injunctions under the Sherman anti
rust law and that they also shall have
The power to intervene in any suit
brought by the Government under this
act. Now the Federal Government alone
is empowered to begin proceedings
inder the sherman law.
The bill also proposes that the burden
II proof in regard to the reasonableness
sor unreasonableness Of restraint of
trade shall be shifted from the COM
pIainant to the defendant corporation.
In addition to these recommendations
the bill defines the acts which shall
constitute unreasonable restraints OF
trade.
The committee contends that the def
milton Of these restraints will remove
the uncertainty OF business men In re-
gard tn the meaning Of the Sherman
antitrust act. In addition the commit
tee proposes the following radical
amendments:
That the control Of 80 per cent. OF the
output by any corporation shown to
nave entered into a combination in re-
restraint Of trade shall be presumptive
evidence that the restraint Is unreason-
able.
provision which entities an ind-
vidual defendant to use the Judgment
obtained by the Government against
any corporation ais a conclusive finding
against the corporation in suits to re-
cover damages.
=. provision which empowers the
court to issue an order compelling com.
binations which monopOlixe any article
or product of interstate commerce tc
grant the use OF such article to q COM
plainant until an adequate substitute Is
found.
An amendment investing the cour,
With broad powers in the matter OF dis.
solving corporations. The committee
contends that the powers which II pro-
poses in this connection will insure a
real dissolution and the court will not bs
hampercd by such stock cOntractural
lights as existed In the tobacco trust
. ease.
a section prohibiting under severe
penalty the interocking Of directors be-
tween railroads and companies produc-
mr. their equipment. and also a section
making II unlawful for any corporation
engaged in mining or manufacturing to
control railroad. This section Is de.
'isned to bring about a divorcing OF the
ste"l Corporation from its big railroad
holdings
Representative Littleton Of New York
VIII sign the Stanley report. but viii
dissent from some Of the Legislative
recommendations, and will submit pro-
rosed amendments Of his own.
n Here are the three most important sec
''ons Of the bill
Ne"li"n 10 Any person who shall he
Injured IN ili- business or property or shall
ne Threatened with such injury by any
"'her person or corporation by reason
ny ahS'hln. forbidden or declared to bt
"nIh"'ni by this act may bring suit In equity
IN any circuit Court of the United State,
10 The district IN which the defendant re
''IrN or l. iound to prevent and RESTRAIN
No'd'l"nS 81 hi, act and for other aprrO
q pirate rrliet
section ~ Whenever suit has been in
\ 'u'pted under section 4 of this act any
'ef-on WHO shah be injured in his business
't properly or threatened with such in
Nv h' 'h" defendants in said suit or an!
lem h' reason Of anything forbidden
%. declared 10 be unlawful in this act ant
"". N'a'" of the nited States may a
any '"A" intervene in said suit TO prOtec
O'' interests or II the interviewer he a STATE
'"' Interests oi the citizens Of such state
'h' any persons Interested or any State
4 ''' N''"' mai decree in said suit pet itioI
a'' '' !E Tor iruteC! ion or redress In cast
w 'NN N'"Ihilon Of said decree, and ths
''' 'AhI, have power to take such act ior
NAV h' appropriate in the premises.
"''"h - Whenever in any suit IL snal
"pie"' 'h'l any combination was entered
h'', existed or exists which was or /,
~ f"' 'a'ut of trade the burden OF proo
establish IN" reasonableness of such
y 'ih' 'Hnll be upon the party who con
Il '"'' .N'' such restraint j. reasonable.
.'' ~ Whenever in any suit H. shal
.pN""T n'' any combination was entered
saw '".-."d or exists. which was or Is In
''.i - iradc. such restraint shall b'
-" deemed to have been and Il
''''-onah" and in violation of the
''''"' "l his act as 10 any party therpt,
~ j. ICING on any business to which
''' rIdtion relates or In connectio
"a" -l%rstcance of these four sect ioIu
''-' rI"'! hy the committee in a memo
'an' ~. ached to its bill is as follows:
'u - designed TO permit any in
'.' .' '"Iin suits in equity for in junc
"'"r tA' sherman antitrust law
nav" held that under the presen
rocecding lies except at tn,