The Forrest City times., 1914-01-23


 ther and more explicit legislative defi- milton of the policy and meaning of the existing antitrust law. Nothing hampers business like uncertainty. Nothing daunts or discourages it 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 lv We are sufficiently familiar with the actual processes and methods of monopoly and of the many hurtful re. stratnts of trade to make definition possible, at any rate up to the limits of what experience has disclosed. These practices, being now abundant, item by item forbidden by statute in such terms as will 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 it's process of self-correction and dis turb its legitimate course as little as possible, we ought to see 10 it. and the judgment of practical and saga 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 act of business is done at the com. mand or upon the initiative of some ascertainable person or group of per. sons. These should not be held indi. vfdually responsible and the punish. ment should fall upon, not upon the business organization of which they make illegal use. It 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 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. CT part of their corporate stock is owned by a single person or group of persons who are in some way in. umately related in interest. We are agreed, l 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 sui fered to be themselves in effect hold ing companies? We do not wish suppose, to forbid the purchase of stocks by any person who pleases tc 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 CTS of stock, when their voting powe, !n several companies which ought tc be Independent of one another would constitute actual control to make election in which of them they will exercise their right to vote? This question l venture for your considera ton.
 There is another matter in which imperative considerations of justice and fair play suggest thoughtful re medial action. Not only do many O, the combinations effected or sougbr to be effected in the industrial world work an injustice upon the public l general; they also directly and seri ously injure the individuals who are put out of business in one unfair wa, or another by the many dislodgina and exterminatng forces of combina ton. l hope that We shall agree in giving private individuals who clain, 10 have been injured by these pro cesses the right to found their suit, by the government where the govern ment has upon it's own initiative suet the combined complained of and won its suit and that the statute of limi tations shall be suftsred to run against such litgants only from the date of the conclusion of the govern ments acton. It is not fair that tho private litigant should be obliged tc 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 quiry as the government has com mand of. Thus shall individual jus tice be done, while the processes q, business are rectifed and squared with the general conscience.
 To Whlten Ivory.
 To Wh,ten ivory rub ii we'll with