Valdez daily prospector., 1915-10-30
When Will They Finish?

| competing roads secret acquisition of stock, the incorporation of dummy companies for the sole purpose of concealing ownership, fictitious sale of. securities in order to deceive the authorities, the use of money for con- trol of newspapers and favorable leg islation, the stockholders in acquir- ing competing properties, the burning of books, and the transfer of records beyond the jurisdiction of the federal authorities. These are probably the principal acts with which the direc- tors of the "New Haven" are charged by the federal attorney.
 In stating the case for the Govern ment MT. Datts expressed the opinion tl4- had the New Haven combination been attained in the natural and le- gitimate growth of business it might not necessarily have come within the scope of monopolistic corporations which the Sherman law" was in- tended to reach. All these acts, it is charged, were committed with "crim- inal intent" and with full knowledge that they were unlawful.
 Assuming that these acts were com mitted, and with full knowledge that they were unlawful according to ex- isting statutes, it would seem that "criminal intent" would naturally exist in every pronounced form, and that those who committed said acts should pay the penalty just as we all do for any breach of-even-nature's laws.
 Therefore the only ground on which accused can honorably defend their past acts is to claim that exist ing conditions made such acts justifi- able in order that said New Haven might continue to exist, to prosper, and to defend it's own rights against competitors, who adopted tactics even worse than were those of the New Haven. They might also claim that the Sherman law" ought never to have been enacted and that said law is impractical because it fails entirely to deal with any except those of the surviving company, that the Gov ernment whose duty it was since the law became effective to referee be- tween warning corporations has fail ed entirely to do its duty and that therefore the government at this time has no means of knowing whether said acts were committed in defen- sive or offensive competition.
 I do not intend at this time to offer my opinon on whether the acts com plained of in this case are necessary or justif1able in the growth of cor poration, but it seems certain that these conditions confront and trouble the managers and directors of the av- craze corporation. It is only fair to assume that such acts were repugnant to the gentlemen in this case, just as they are-or ought to be-to the young business man today. The ex- pressed opinion in the address of MT. Datts, that large combinations need not necessarily be illegal CT detri- mental to the public welfare is cheer ing news to the perplexed organizer of the present day.
 The only question now to be decid- ed upon is; what will the administra- tion and the public mind accept as a combination not detrimental to the public welfare. It seems the attor- ney general ought soon to issue a cir cular touching on this matter; or must we all run the risks of being l prosecuted to determine whether we are within the limits? Meanwhile we patiently wait for the rules, while those who can afford to take chances laugh up their sleeve.
 BUSINESS STUDENT.