The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-02-27
Finds Antitrust Measures OPP
posed to "Maturc Pub
lie Opinion"
SHERMAN LAW ADEQUATE
Ex-Attorney- General Analyses
in Notable Address Bills
Now Pending.

NV ana ADDITIONS 10 suBkestcu os
President Wilson or embodied In bills
now before Congress were discussed by
northumberland George w. Wicker
sham at a meeting of the American Acad-
envy of Political and Social Science here
tonight.
Mr.. wickershan. who rs President
Taft's business and corporation expert
appeared for the Government In many
proceedings under the Sherman law. de-
clarsd that that measure was adequate
70 cope with all existing evils or monop-
DIV. He criticised severely amendments
70 the law suggested by President Wilson
as we'll as changes embodied In pending
hills and suggested that the mature
public opinion" which President Wilson
had recommended as the final test was
already to be found in the laws control
ling corporations enacted In hfteen or
more States.
Mr.. Wickersham quoted frequently from
chose parts OF President Wilson's recent
message 10 Congress which dealt with
The trust problem. He laid particular
b emphasis upon this passage from the
peeaidents message:
Wilson Doctrine anH the bii1s.
~yursly we arc sufflciently familiar
Win the actual processes and methods OF
monopoly and OF the many hurtful re-
O<ysints OF trade to make dehnition posi-
BILE Ut any rate up to the limits OF what
actual experience has disclosed. These
practices being now abundantly disclosed
can be explicitly item by item forbidden
by statute In such terms as Will prac-
tScally eliminate uncertainty. the law
itself and the penalty being made equally
plain"
purposes outlined by the President Mr..
wickersham said. that two DIS now
pending before Congress were introduced.
He charged that. the bills fail In their
purpose since they do not attempt even
TO codify the decisions OF the supreme
Court" and, he added. NOR do they tend
70 make certain any uncertainties found
TO exist In the printed law. They intro
duce new phraseology which would call
for new and uncertain judicial construc-
tisA:
After analyzing the proposed amend
ments to the antitrust act at some length
and pointing out that they contained
many an Invitation to a lawsuit, Mr..
Wickersham quoted again from the Presi-
dents message as follows:
Constructive legislation when success
full 10 always the embodiment OF con-
vincing experience and OF the mature
public opinion which finally springs out
OF that experience.
Lesson From Lave 81 states.
He declared that the antitrust legis-
iption now before Congress did not
embody such convincing experience. He
said that II such experience was wanted
It might be found In the trust governing
laws OF fifteen or more States enacted
since 1906. OF the expression OF public
opinion as reflected In these laws he said :
ain almost all Of this legislation II has
bsen recognized that general provisions
OF the character contained In the Gov
ernments bills, without qualification
would be unenforceable. because TO en-
farce them would destroy not merely COM
petition, but trade and commerce ITSELF
and the Legislatures In at least ten
States to prevent that clearly foreseen re-
suit, have migrated upon these prohibit
lions provisos and exceptions which either
wholly neutr al,ze the effect Of the prohibit
lions or SO restrict their operation as TO
limit them substantially TO those cases
which In tho natural domain would fall
within the purview OF the Sherman anti
trust law as construed by the Supreme
Court because constituting undue re-
Oeraint Of trade or commerce or an at
tsnpt to monopolize some part OK IL,
As exemplyfying the truth or his state
ments Mr.. Wickersham pointed out that
In 1906 the Legislature OF Kentucky had
PASSED a law for the express purpose OF
allowing growers OF wheat. tobacco or
other farm products 10 enter into pools
for the purpose OF advantageously holding
and marketing their crops. and TO select
an agent through whom they might carry
cut cooperative selling. He continued;
when Combination n for Good.
In 1907 the Legislature OF California
uassed an antitrust act almost In the
terms OF the bill pending In Congress
which, as amended in 1909, provides thai
no agreement, combination or association
shall be deemed unlawful, or within the
provisions of this act. the object and bust
ness OF which are to conduct its opera
tons At a reasonable profit or to market
at reasonable prott those products
which cannot otherwise be so marketed
He pointed out that another provision
Of the California law made II lawful fol
pervons or firms engaged In manufacture
ing or selling commodities OF a similar
character to form associations having FOL
their object the transportation or market
ing Of such commodities.
"And by a section added in 1902" h,
oontinued. 1t WAS declared to be Lawful
10 enter into agreement or to form asso
Citations or combinations the purpose ant
efIect OF which shall be to promote, en-
courage or increase competition In an,
trade or industry or which are In further
ance OF trade"
Mr.. Wfckersham said that similar ex
oeptions were added to the law passed
IN Colorado In 1918. Then ne quoted
provision inserted In the Indiana anti
trust law OF 1905 as follows:
THAT II shall be good defence 4
any action growing out Of any violation
0f the provisions OF this act. or any othe
act or common law relating to the sub
Ject matter OF this act. II the defendan
shall plead. and by fair preponderanc
q the evidence prove. that such violation
was not in restraint OF trade or com
merce. or does not restrict trade or com
merce. or limit or reduce the production
or increase or reduce the price OF rer
chandiee or any commodity. natural o
ARTIFICIAL. or prevent competition in man
ufActure.'"
Stste Laws Analysed.
Mr.. wickersham mentioned the Wyo
ming law Of 1911. which prohibited tn
selling In one part OF the State at
lower price than In another part afte
squalixins prices with respect to the dis
tance from the point OF prohuc'ion. wit
the added p-oviro that prices might diffe
where a difference IN railroad rates q
natural causes would initiate In favor Q
0Dwe particular seller.
StIrther to show that public opinio
n already cryrtall,zed IN the laws =