Omaha daily bee., 1916-10-14

, this they have not defined. No
phrase more indefinite was ever put
into statute
Usually words are used in a stat
tute with some reference to their
meaning in the law. But the phrase
unfair competition is evidently not
used in its ordinary legal sense. That
refers to the palming off Of one mans
| goods as these of another through
misleading descriptions, labels, car
tons, and the like. There were and
are abundant remedies for that sort
of things, as every we'll informed mer-
chant knows.
Even Lawyers Don't Know.
This phrase as used in the new
law was evidently intended TO have
wider meaning than that. What is
its meaning? No lawyer knows. 1t
will have to be worked out through
years OF litigation and by the de-
cisions OF courts, for the federal trade
commission cannot settle the legal
meaning of the statute which con-
fers its authority.
Yet the administration complac-
emily speaks of aiding business by
defining the evils aimed at by the
antitrust acts.
Not only does the federal trade
commission act not define what it
means by unfair competition, but it
leaves the antitrust act in full effect
as before"
The federal trade commission act
conludes as follows:
"'Nothing contained in this act shall
be construed to prevent or interfere
with the enforcement of the pro-
visions of the antitrust acts, or the
act to regulate commerce. nor shall
anything contained in the act be con-
strued to alter, modify or repeal the
said antitrust acts, or the act to
regulate commerce or any part or
parts thereof ,.
That disposes Of the claim of the
administration that it has aided busi-
ness by clarifying the antitrust act"
At this point Mr.. Hughes was in
terrupted and he made his statement
concerning the. Lusitania incident.
1T has been said that the new
freedom would liberate great oppor-
tunities. But what do we find? We
find that it has been cover, or rather.
there has been a freedom to deviate
from settled principles Of interna-
tional law in the conduct of personal
diplomacy to satisfy personal vim
dictiveness. The powers of this great
nation in diplomacy exercise great and
we'll settled principles. When look
at the record in Mexico | am filled
with jismay at what portends. 1t was
not a question at all of whether
Huerta should or should not have
been recognized. The administration
might have refused recognition il it
thought that he did not have stable
government to maintain. But the ad-
rilinistration was not content with
that. The new freedom seemed to
cover freedom to wage personal
war upon a disliked ruler. l have read
the instructions that were authorized
to be given by the official spokesman
of the administration. -
1T was IN these terms as communf-
Gated to foreign minister in Mexico,
minister there of another country
deeply concerned in our policy. The
language OF the authorized statement
was this: ....
"'Huerta will be put out, if he does
not get out. The president prefers that
this should be done by domestic
means if possible, but whatever
means are necessary will be resort
ed to- '-H a9
That was threat OF war. That
in my judgment, was an indefensible
threat OF war. That led to our en-
broilment in actual war, for within a
few days! our forces were sent to
Mexico and we had an actual battle
at Vera Cruz. Now, we are met with
the statement that to challenge the,
record Of the administration is prac-
tically to say that one favored war.
| do not favor war; am man OF
peace. | believe we should consult
the policies of peace. ! believe in
maintaining to Americans just rights,
but am opposed to waging war upon