Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1914-02-07


fered because it could not obtain fur.
Their and more explicit legislative def
milton of the policy and meaning Of
the existing antitrust law. Nothing
hampers business like uncertainty
Nothing daunts or discourages 1t like
the necessity to take chances. to run
the risk of falling under the con-
demnation of the law before it can
make sure Just what the law is Sure
1y We are sufficiently familiar with
the actual processes and methods of
monopoly and of the many hurtful re-
straints of trade to make definition
possible, at any rate up to the limits
of what experience has disclosed.
These practices, being now abundant
ly disclosed, can be explicitly and
item by item forbidden by statute in
such terms as viii practically elimi-
nate uncertainty, the law itself and
the penalty being made equally plain.
Would Punish Individuals.
Inasmuch as our object and the
spirit of our action in these matters
is to meet business half way in its
process of self-correction and dis
turb its legitimate course as little as
possible, we ought to see to it, and
cious men of affairs everywhere
would applaud US if we did see to it,
that penalties and punishments
should fall, not upon business itself,
to it's confusion and interruption, but
upon the individuals who use the in
strumentalities of business to do
things which public policy and sound
business practice condemn. Every
~f t.
mand or upon the initiative of some
ascertainable person or group of per-
sons. These should not be held indi-
vidually responsible and the punish
ment should fall upon, not upon the
business organization of which they
make illegal use. 1t 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, I am
sure, applaud US if we were to take
effectual steps to see that the officers
and directors of great business bodies
were prevented from bringing them
and the business of the country into
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 be-
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 are in some way in
timately related in interest We are
agreed, I take it, that holding com
panies should be prohibited, but what
of the controlling private ownership
OF individuals or actually cooperative
groups of individuals Shall the pri-
vate owners of capital stock be suf-
fered to be themselves in effect hold
ing companies? We do not wish, l
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 fide
purchasers. Shall We require the own
ers of stock, when their voting power
in several companies which ought to
be independent of one another would
election in which of them they will
exercise their right to vote? This
question 1 venture for your considera-
ton.
There is 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
to be effected in the industrial world
work an injustice upon the public in
general; they also directly and seri-
ously injure the individuals who are
put out of business in one unfair way
or another by the many dis1odging
and exterminating forces OF combfna-
tioQ- ! hope that we shall agree in
giving private individuals who claim
to have been injured by these pro-
cesses the right to found their suits
by the government where the govern,
ment has upon its own initiative sued
the combined complained of and won
its suit and that the statute OF limi-
tationS shall be suffered to run
against such litigants only from the
date of the conclusion of the govern
ments action 1t is not fair that the
private litigant should be obliged to
set up and establish again the facts
which the government has proved. He
cannot afford, he has not the power.
to make use of such processes of in
curry as the government has COM