The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-10-02
(By Hon. Thomas w. Gregory, At torney General of the
 United States.)


 United States.)
 The preservation of fair competition
 in trade and the prevention of monOp
 oily are essential to the general wei
 fare. Therefore, efficient and ener
 getic enforcement of the Federal An
 ti-Trust Act prohibiting restraints ant
 monopolizations of interstate trade i
 of the highest importance to the peo pie.
 There are now pending in the Fed
 eral Courts S6 proceedings under thu Antitrust Act. There are also pend
 ing numerous Investigations of alleged violations of the Act. These proceed ings and investigations are being con- ducted by the Department of Justice which Is charged by law with the en- forcement of the Act. Among the more important proceedings instituted under the Antitrust Laws during the present Administration are the follow | ing:
 Against Reading Company and oth- CT anthracite coal carrying and mining companies for the purpose of breaking up the combinations which control l the supply and the price of anthracite coal; against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to require it to re- linquish control of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, competing transcont1nental line; against the Am erican Can Company to dissolve a combination which controls the mar ket for tin cans; against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- road Company to dissolve a monopoly of the transportation facilities of New England; against the United Shoe Ma | chinerY Company to cancel the so- called tying contracts by which 1t has monopolized trade and commerce In shoe machinery; against the American Telephon4 & Telegraph Company to enjoin the execution of a plan for mo- nopolizing the means of communica- | ton by wire; against the Eastman Ko- dak Company to dissolve a combin- atfon which controls the market of ko- daks and photographic supplies; against the Quaker Oats Company to break up combination which con- trols the market for package rolled Oats; and against the Wholesale Jew elers' Association to break up com bination designed to prevent manu- factures from selling direct to retail dealers and consumers.
 The fundamental weakness in the enforcement of the Antitrust Act in previous administrations was the fail ure to insist upon a real dissolution or monopolies and combinations which the Courts had adjudged unlawful.
 In the principal case in the Roose- welt Administration the Northern Se- curities Case-and in the principal cases in the Taft Administration, the Standard Oil Case, the Tobacco Case and the Powder tCase-the parts in- to which the unlawful monopoly wal divided were left by decree of court in control of one and the same set of persons.
 Such dissolutions merely change tho form of the monopoly since, of course, competition in real sense can not ex- ist between corporations controlled by the same persons. The law was thus virtually nullified by reason of the defective manner of its enforcement.
 To illustrate, the various companies which composed the Standard Oil Combination were permitted to re- main under the common control of the former majority stockholders of the Standard Oil Go. of New Jersey, the defendants in the suit, thereby creating a situation where the persons who formed the combination continued to dominate the trade.
 The futility of these proceedings has been the subject of strong popular complaint In the first place they completely failed to open the way for the restoration of competitive condi- tions in the particular trades affected. Secondly, they weakened popular con- f1dence in the Sherman Law by lead ing many to believe that it was an in adequate remedy for the evil of mo- nopoly, when, as matter of fact, the trouble lay not in the law but in the manner of its enforcement.
 The present Administration on the other hand, has insisted in every case, notably the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific Merger Case, the Anthracite Coal Cases, the Kodak Case, the Tele- phone Case, the New Haven Case, the Harvester Case, and the Corn Pro- ducts Case-that the parts into which the unlawful combination was or may be divided must be separate and dis tinct in ownership and must not be left under the control of the same set of men, thereby opening the way for the restoration of competitive con- ditions in the branches of trade or commerce which had been monopoli- Zed.
 Whilst thus endeavoring to correct the fundamental error which has char acterized the enforcement of the law in the past by insisting upon more eff fective dissolutions of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, the present administration at the same time has been solicitous to avoid pros- l cutions for which there is no adequate | ground. Its policy in that regard | was stated as follows by me in an in- | terview some time ago with a com | niittee of the Chamber of Commerce l of the United States.
 The Sherman Act is enforced by the !, of Justice in the same l manner and according to the same | rules of policy as othsr statutes