The Dickson County herald. (Dickson, Tenn.) 1907-1979, 1914-01-30

hkNu, MA& luuE AMMtNfk Nt& h@1K -
Tered because II could mot obtain fur.
ther and more explicit legislative dea.
nitspn Of the policy and meaning a
the existing antitrust law. Nothing
hampers buainess iike na,eertaintg.
Nothing daunss or sdiscoursses Il liks
the necessity 20 take chances, a run
the risk OF falling under The con
/ eemnation Of the law before IL can
make sure just what the -law b. Sure.
ly we are sufficiently familiar With
the actual processes and methods Of
monopoly and Of the many Aurtful ~.
listraints OF trade To make definition
| possible, at any rate up 10 the iisnfts
of what experience has disclosed.
These practices. being nov abundant.
ly disclosed. can be explicitly and
item by item forbidden by statute In
such terms Us win practically eIiuii-
nate uncertainty, the hv Itself and
the penalty being made equally plain.
Would Punish individuals y
fnasmuch az our objee, and the
| spirit OF our action In these matters
h to meet business half way In It's
process OF sslf-correction and dis
| turb It's legitimate course as little a.
possible. we ought TO see to II. and
the judgment OF practical and saga,
eious men OF affairs everywhere
would applaud us IL We did see to II.
that penalties and punishments
shonlA fall not upon business itself.
to Its confusion and interruption. but
upon the individuals who use the IN.
strumentalities OF business 10 do
things which public policy and sound
business practice condemn. Every
act Of business Is done at the com.
mand or upon the initiative OF some
sscertainable person or group OF per.
sons. These should not be held indi.
yid"q.ly responsible and the punish
~ II should fall upon. not upon the
business organization OF which they
make Illegal use. II should be one
OF the main objects Of our Legislation
to divest such persons OF their cor.
porate cloak and deal with them as
with those who do not represent their
corporations. but merely by deliber-
ate intention break the law. Business
men the country through would. | am
sure, applaud us II we were TO take
eifectual steps TO see that the officers
and directors OF great business bodies
we're prevented from bringing them
and the business OF the country intc
disrepute and danger
To Prohibit Holding Companies
Other questions remain which will
need very thoughtful and practical
treatment. Enterprises, In these mod
ern days OF great individual fortunes.
are oftentimes interlocked, not by b.
ing under the control OF the same di.
rectors, but by the fact that the great
er part OF their corporate stock Is
owned by single person or group
OF persons who ara In some way In.
timately related In interest. We are
agreed. take 1t, that holding com.
panies should be prohibited, but what
OF the controlling private ownership
OF individuals or actually cooperative
groups OF individuals Shall the pr-
vate owners OF capital stock be- suf
fered TO be themselves In effect hold
ing companies We do no, wish |
suppose, to forbid the purchase OF
stocks by any person who pleases to
buy them In such quantities as he can
afford, or In any way arbitrarily To
limit the sale Of stocks to bona f,de
purchasers Shall we require the own.
ers OF stock, when their voting power
in several companisu which ought 10
be independent OF one another would
constitute actual control, 10 make
election. in which OF them they will
exercise their right to vote? This
question | venture for your considera.
ton.
There Ia another matter in which
imperative considerations OF Justice
and fair play suggest thoughtful re.
medal action, Not only do many OF
the combinations effected or sought
10 be effected In he Industrial world
work an injustice upon the public II
general. they also directly and seri-
ously IMPURE the individuals who are
put out OF business IN one unfair way
or another by the many dislodgins
and exterminattps forces OF combina.
ton. hope that We shall agree In
giving private individuals who claim
TO have been injured by these pro
cesses the right 10 found their suits
by the government WHERE the govern.
ment has upon its own initiative sued
the combined complained Of and won
It's suit and that the statute OF liml
tations shall b. suffered to run
against such litigan,s only from the
date Of the conclusion Of the govern
ment's action. II In not fair that the
private htiEant should he obliged to
set up and establish again the facts
which the government has proved. He
cannot afford, be has no, the power.
TO make use OF such processes OF in.
9piry as the government has com
mand Of Thus shall individual JUS
rice Nc done, while the processes OF