The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1913-06-20

The country is treated to the singu-
larly sensational and novel spectacle of
the chief executive law officer of the
government plunging into the abyss of
most radical, socialistic and perverse
legislation, apparently for no other
reason than to crafty his presentment
for a personal disappointment by the
federal judiciary. AS prosecutor of the
former Tobacco Trust, by appointment
under Republican administration, ne
vented his spleen indecorously at the
Federal courts adoption of the disin-
tegration decree, because it did not
harmonic and coincide with his own
preconceived and one-sided notions of
what this decree should have been.
Through the fortunes of politics he be-
came the chief executive law officer of
the Wilson administration. But in
stead of legitimately using as attorney
general the powers of his office to sub
NIT in legal and orderly way to the
highest judicial tribunal any substan-
tial evidence or proof of the illegality
or ineffectiveness or noncompliance Of
the disintegration decree with the judg-
ment rendered by the Supreme court,
he jumps into the arena with the So
cialistic club of destruction with taxa
ton. If Big Business cannot be put
Of fhrn17nh tho OrHIn
process of law in compliance with our
statutes and constitutional provisions
it must be taxed to death by the power
of Congress! This strangling process
is to be first applied to Big Tobacco
Business and if successful Big Business
| in other industries would be likewise
decapitated. AS an unavoidable logical
result the assumption of all business
| by the government would have to fol
low and thus the incarnation Of the So
| cialistic dream would be realized. But
why, common sense asks, If his grlev-
ance against the disintegration decree
| is justified, does not the attorney-gen-
| eral proceed against it legally under
| the power and tradition of the Depart
ment of Justice? With all the unlim-
tied resources of the investigation
| power of the Bureau of Corporation
and of his own legal department not q
scintilla of fact has been disclosed to
| the public, why the disintegration de-
| cree should be undone and why the
| disintegrated companies should be
| treated as outlaws. The only offense
| seems to be that these companies since
| their separation are doing each and IN
| dividually big business. And for sim
ply doing a Big Business in Lawful
| and economic way the attorney-genera
| of the United States proposes to penal
| ize their efficiency and skill by taxing
| them out of business in the most arbl
| trary manner possible. No more mon
| strous proposition has ever been sub
| mitted to the legislative body OF any
civilized country. Is Big Business II
itself crime? The United States Su
preme court in its antitrust decision:
| has emphatically declared that the
Sherman act did not Intend to disturb
Big Business nor could it be legltl
| mately disturbed And President Viii
son both in his letter of acceptance ant
in his inaugural address expressed Ike
sentiments and his determination no
to hinder by any improper steps tn
| vast DEVELOPMENT of our industries. L
Bigness in itself is an impediment t.
the happiness of our people, then &C
| cording to the same reasoning the Big
ness of our country ought to be dis
membered in order to gratlfy mer'
| provincial, local and individual indlffer
ance and retrogression. u. 5. Tobacco
Journal.