The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-06-13

| man law was not satisfactory ana that
it must tackle the trust question. and
so it passed the Clayton bill, which In my
! judgment will make confusion worse con-
! founded: for it seems to ME that our
! lawmakers have again failed to accur-
ately diagnose the situation. They. as
Democrats. seemed to realize in 1914. as
! did the Republicans in their platform
! Of 1908, that something was wrong or
lacking In the Sherman law: but, either
! through ignorance or lack OF courage.
our Democratic friends have failed to
\ meet the issue squarely and settle il
inteliSently and in keeping with modern
economic and moral requirements.
In the meantime. while the Clayton bin
was being debated in Congress and en-
acted into law, we had two trust case
| decisions by two courts of equal rank
and only exceeded in power by the
| Supreme Court itself refer to the
| Harvester decision and the aWtch Case
| decision
In the government suit to dissolve the
International Harvester Company, the
| United states District Court for the
district of Minnesota handed down
! decision short time ago. dissolving
that company on the ground that II had
acquired too large percentage Of the
business in which il was engaged: yet
all the Judges who Joined in the decision
gave tiI' tbltIpdH' a 'ltdi VI ntdil'l
as to its conduct and even went so far
as to Criticise the government for charg
ing that the company had improperly
conducted its business. The Harvester
Company has taken an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Again. only a few weeks ago the United
States District Court for the Eastern dis
triCt Of Pennsylvania. a court of precise
ly the same standing and power the
! r. 20,
Company. handed down a decision refus-
ing TO dissolve the keystone Watch Case
Company. specifically stating that, in its
opinion. under the Sherman law size is
no crime: that the company had been
guilty Of "A few improper practices. hut
that these could and should he reached
by governmental injunction and not by
governmental dissolution. The Attorney
General has appealed this case to the
Supreme Court
Here We have two courts of precisely
the same power and jurisdiction handing
down decisions under the Sherman law
that are exactly opposite in character.
Since these decisions the Harvester case
has been carried 10 the Supreme Court.
When the Harvester case was before the
Circuit Court II was argued by Re-
publican Attorney General. who laid
great stress on the fact that the com
pany had been guilty Of all sorts of i'm
proper. immoral practices The govern
ment was practically thrown out of court
on all those CHARGES Tho nresept Demo-
cratic Attorney General in arguing tho
case before the Supreme Court. admitted
that the Harvester Company had been
honOrahly managed and conducted. hut
set up the contention that il is Illegal I'M
der the Sherman law because of the
manner in which it WAS organized; that
,r ,,,,,',a,,, ., -, ,1roa,', rro.,,,i
49, !, ,,o,,IJ h.,,.o 10, L., ~, -
a. :. - fo,..,,aa ,t,.o,,rL IT, ,o,,soI;a.
u 1911, 3 49,, -.
- f t,,,.t,,, :. TO- MI
r. t.,,as., ,,,'iai,;,,'r 'i,,,,.;o,, ...
do,.oIonod ~ .ba s,,i, ,.;z ,ha ,,,daas .,
~ r,I,, J." r ,m r,., tiIs :,
" 60, -. o.
ali moral Grounds evnp going 60 far az
10 criticise the government Tor settinG up
any other contention ana saving that
u"IhiS 'he hrst TWO or ti'ree Years OF the
existence OF 'ne harvester company
tn'i' were er'a'ii i"piop'I PracticeS. OUT
lh,'t lnsse were Hhher't" from the Snah
oIlllhnles ana erdn''ated by tne large
''"'p""! DIS so"" dS p"SS"'ie het TINS
80 ny NV I"'" VIZ "e'.es"
,;,, 10, "'',''H S'l"uiu oe
...' ne present i,"nnocratlc AT
aSN supreme "ur'
"a. ., ,,'1' ."'' Wy "'"ct'cdiiN
49, '' Us ne re-
n a..s.., p -, "Iien u
Ii,,, t '' .'i'ip''iies'
,,.oro ,,,iI, &c -, says
other u,ords ,ho Cirn,i, c,.. 80; I"
Dop,ocratic ,,,or,,., C'o.i IN ',e
tale the nosi,io, ,ha, - 80 az ~
comnetipr co,parias doi,,o ~, , S'.''''
business would he oor,rI,.ir -, t a.
sherman Iau wb;Io , io,ca - I,,s.. ~.
COMPANY. doing an admi,tedI,. 49, n,,-
mess would no vioI,,i,c H. Sh
law This incident alone n,,,s o,,r , ,'ls,'
friends on record as baIiavin, a.. -
interest and welfare Of our noopra 80
more closely wrapped I'm in a ,.;r5;o,,;o.,
of legal technicaIities tb,n moral ,o,I'aI,
ties and economic. Considerations
Now
""r'd.
~ the men who passed the Sherman law
mao properly diagnosed the situation and
had realized the great new causes that
were at the time manifesting themselves
IN the business world. they would have
known that the sherman law. as passed.
could not possibly accomplish the results
desired. for the following reasons:
First: Because with steam and cleo
tricy it was inevitable that We would
have large business units.
Second: Because with large business
units. men still being human and selfish
would abuse the power that larr. busi-
ness units gave them
Third Because the only way tn nro-
tect the people from the evils that we're
developing was to permit the organizations
of large business units since ,ba,, -.