New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-01-12
The Administrations Anti Trust
Bills.

Frou, fine ANALYSIS Of them given cNcluSlNc! ~
rho 1'ribune's Washington correspondence II Is "P
porcnt that the purpose Of the administrator ""''
,st hills is to define and extend the offences "hc'
onetitutc restraint of trade TO prohibit nterocNls
l;roctorates to prcvent the abuse OF patent l1s"'
,ooronolios made possible 10y Supreme court w
cisione. IN strengthen the penal provisions oi '"o
Sborn,an act and TO improve the standing OF l'"''
vidual victims Of monopoly under that act. II '"e
hills os they are described by our correspondents
mass Mr. Wilson'S scrutiny when he returns from HE
vacation the administration will he committed ~ Z"
programme of stihenng up the sherman act
Amendments TO the Sherman act such as are no"
nronosed have been discussed often in the past anu
generally with approval The guilt Is PERSONA
idea which undcrlies the newly proposed peha''!
nrovisions has been widely appauded. But 'he
trouble at nrcsent is not that the law does not pro-
vide severe enough penalties hut that il has been al
most impossible 10 induce jury to inhict 'hose
which il does provide Conviction will not he maue
any easier by multiplying penalties
ocislafion to check the abuse of patent rights
yeas called for after the decision of the supreme
Court in the Dick mimeograph case. Chiet Justice
White nointcd out the danger in that decision Inc
Tribune at the time urged the passage of a law 10
meet the situation
The public would doubtless approve law 1orp'u
ding iptcrockinc directories if sufficient time
sbould be allowed for corporations to adjust them
.o,roe to If Business men themselves slow dis
position now to recognize the justice OF the genera"
complaint against this practice.
The idea of making the Sherman acts provisions
against restraint of trade specific has appealed TO
many. But in our opinion the reason which con
drof If no
cral language is still effective to-day. The admin
istrotion bill attempts to declare that there is no
such thing as reasonable restraint Of trade If we
understand the Supreme Court, ii has never said
there was The court has simply ruled that it must
use its reason to decide what the law means when 1t
speaks of restraint of trade And in spite of all the
words which the administrations bill would add to
the law the court would still have to decide as a
hodv of men having no other guide but reason what
was meant 10y restraint of trade as used in tie
law
In the detailed description of the offences which
are prohibited when restraint of trade is intended or
accomplished there is evident purpose TO force the
or to aDplv the act to restraints Of trade to which
if is conceived that it would not apply it. In
these provisions in those providing for severer pen
allies and i'm the declaration that there is no 'rea
sonabe" restraint of trade the radical spirit of the
administration bills is most apparent. And it IS
chiefly the revelation Of this radical spirit that Is
likely 10 affect business conditions unfavorably
Some of the less dsputabe Of this legislation might
he passed without bad consequences. The rest of it
is of such little practical present advantage as not
10 call for immediate passage.
The need for new and additional or seyerer pen
allies is not imperative. The Sherman act as it
stands is of such force and eett that combinations
are everywhere senifyng their readiness TO comply
with A. What is the need at this time then. of sup
Elementary legislation calculated to explain or
strengthen il? Especially when reopening the sub
iect in the spirit which animaes the authors of the
administrations bills as they stand now is likely to
give further pause TO the recovery of industrial CON
fdence.