New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-03-13
"Intent" Must Be Crux or
Cases When They Reach
Courts.
RULE OF REASON TO.
CONTINUE AS GUIDE
President Explains Difficulties IN
Framing Law to Catch
Only the Goats.
fFrom The Tribune Bureau

Washington, March 12.-President VII
son, expressing the belief that the ad-
ministration antitrust programme would
be carried out without delay eiucdated
to-day some of the difficulties which con-
front the lawmakers. The effort to pro-
hibIt holding companies without inter
dieting Ownership" companies is, ac-
cordine 20 the President, one Of the most
difficult problems, while another is an
adequate prohibition of stock control III
competing companies which will not IN
duly interfere with legitimate property
rights.
The President made it clear that there
would be no attempt by him or his party
to upset the rule Of reason which mas
guided the Supreme Court in its inter-
pretation Of the Sherman law, saying tina.
he did not see how the court could De
guided other than by the rule of reason.
This administration, in its consideration
of this subject, Is fast getting back TO ire
view of the Taft administration, that the
only safe guide OF the courts in applying
this law must be the intent of the acts
which are submitted to it for Judgment
in the opinion of many who heard the
Presidents discussion Of the adminlstra-
tons desire to supplement the existing
law.
In illustration OF the first difficult prop
lem the President cited the case OF q
New Jersey corporation which found u
10 its interest 20 establish factory IN
PENNSYLVANIA. Under the laws of the
latter state, he said. foreign corpora
ton could not hold real estate. 1t would.
therefore. be necessary 10 organize u
separate CORPORATION TO conduct the busi-
moss in PENNSYLVANIA. Such a transaction
would be wholly proper, and the parent
CORPORATION would be tho owning conf
pany of its Pennsylvania offspring IN
effect. there could be no comparison De-
tween such an arrangement and the hold
ing company created for the specific pur-
pose of sitting competition. but the dliii-
culties presented in framing a statute
which will prohibit the one ana permit
the other arc perpleXing.
In the second instance. the President
DOintpd out tndt Il p'lN'h i"'o''N
the owner of majority stock interest
in two competing concerns and might ac-
ouire such possession with no purpose OF
thought of operating either with vie"
10 sitting competition. lie might NM
self hecome n director in both or he might
mama the directors I'm both. II Is not
desired TO prohibit such Joint ownership
although il is believed necessary TO pre-
vent such ownership when it is utilized
10 restrain trade This is a feature or the
situation which the President has laid pc
fore the legislators, but for which, he al
r,its he has found no satisfactory rem
edy.
Regarding the effort TO dehne' III 50 la
as practicable, some of the things pro-
bibited bv tho antitrust law, the Presl-
dent has explained TO friends that IL IS
his desire TO see taken such steps as shall
render Il easier to fix Individual RESPONSE
biIitv for violations OF the Sherman ID"
without actually amending that statute
Indeed. Mr. Wilson objects TO the sus-
restion that it is his policy to amend
that law. explaining that he desires 10 90
nothiny which will in any way detracI
from the judicial Interpretation or the
statute already obtained from the courts