The Washington herald., 1912-07-23
REPORT DEMANDS
RADICAL CHANGES
IN SHERMAN LAW
Continued fron rag. one.


petition said court for protection or re-
dress in case Of any violation Of said
decree. and the court shall have power
to take such action as may be appro-
pirate In the premises.
Sec. E-Whenever In any suit II shall
appear that any combination was enter
ed into. existed. or exists. which was or
is In restraint Of trade, the burden OF
proof to establish the reasonableness Of
such restraint shall be upon the party
who contends that such restraint is rea-
sonable.
Any Restraint Unreasonable.
Sec. 13-whenever in any suit 1t shall
appear that any combination was entered
into, existed, or exists, which was or Is
In restraint Of trade, such restraint shall
be conclusively deemed to have been and
to be unreasonable and in violation OF
the provisions OF this act as to combina-
ton relates or in connection Herewith"
The significance of these four sections
as described by the committee in a
memorandum attached to its bill, 10 a.
follows:
Section 10 is designed to permit any in
dividual to begin suits in equity for in
Junction under the Sherman antitrust
law. The courts have held that under the
present law no such proceeding lies, ex-
cept at the instance of the government.
not even IL the petitioner were a State.
Section II is designed to give individ-
uals or State the opportunity to inter-
vene In a government suit. The commit
tee report contends that such a provision
will meet the obstacles to justice pre-
sented in the Tobacco Trust case, where
the independents were not allowed to in
tervene, and hence had no right to ap-
neal In he Of he tad
States.
Proof on Defendants.
In regard to section II the Stanley
Committee says:
1T seems clear that II It appears to
the court that the defendants have COM
bined TO restrain trade. they ought TO
have the burden of proof to show that
the restraint is reasonable: that is, is
consistent with the public interests. This
provision Is an analogy TO the amend
ment made to the interstate commerce
act in 1910, by which the burden OF proof
is on the carrier to show that the in
creased rate is reasonable. II the re-
straint of trade can be justified. the
facts showing Justification must be read
lily available to the combination. This
change in the burden OF proofs applies
only in civil suits. II has no reference
to criminal proceedings."
The committee says that under section
13 II has attempted to select various
practices commonly pursued by trusts.
sive, and to set these up as rendering
the combination conciusively unreason-
able and. therefore. illegal
1T seems best" says the committee,
ito adopt this form OF securing prohibit
ton in order to leave intact the present
Sherman law as interpreted by the Su-
preme Court in the Standard OIL and To-
bacco cases. Practically every one of the
practices specifically enumerated as being
conclusively unreasonable has been re-
viewed in one or more of the trust cases
been subject TO general public condem-
nation"
Stanley Discusses Bill.
Commenting on the antitrust bill pro.
posed by his committee Representative
Stanley said last night:
In the bills touching the activities OF
the United States Steel Corporation as a
common carrier, l consulted with mem
bers Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. am fairly convinced that IL the
recommendations OF this committee are
enacted into law, and that law IS rigidly
enforced. that the monopolistic power
of the United States Steel Corporation
would be successfully curbed even
though it should not be dissolved by the
courts I do not believe that It can pay
its excessive overhead charges. the in.
terest on it's bonded Indebtedness. and
compete with a well-organized and eco
nomical concern possessing the same IA
cilities, after this monopoly has been de-
prived OF Illegal advantages as a COM
mon carrier.
The amendment to the Sherman anti
which interstate corporations have been
guilty. placing them within the prohibi-
ton Of the law. The trouble hitherto
has been that this act is so general In
its terms that IL is often impossible for
courts TO decide-at least. courts have
not decided it-that certain specific acts
constitute an unlawful restraint of trade.
II the bill is passed, II would not be left
to the discretion OF the court to review
the whole course Of a corporations act
to say whether a great concern doing an
interstate business has unreasonAbly re-
strained trade. II II has been guilty of
certain specific acts, they by the law are
made an unreasonable restraint OF trade.
This puts the corporation upon notice OF
the things which II can no longer do,
and II II does them il leaves 1t without
excuse for the violation Of the law when
brought before the courts Of Justice
either in suits for dissolution or for any
other purpose"