The Washington herald., 1916-02-18

respect to legislation supplementary to the Sher-
man Antitrust law, and until his program
enacted into law ten months thereafter, the bust
ress of the country was appreCiably halted. The
suggestions of the President were so comprehen-
sve and their carrying out so difficult and
tain, that the business of the country naturally
hesitated to embark in new enterprises until it
could learn the nature of the new laws which the
Congress was called upon to enact and the force
and effect which such new laws would have upon
business enterprises.
Committees of Congress held protracted ses-
sons for the consideration of this important sub
ject and reams of testimony were taken from
in the report by the House Committee on the
Judiciary of the bill known as the Clayton bill and
in the report by the House Committee on Inter
state Commerce Of the bill known as the Coving-
ton bill.
The Clayton bill, as originally reported to the
House, and even as finally enacted by the House
was a hotchpotch of confusion and of unscientifc
phraseology. After voluminous debate in the
House, debate which plainly Showed a complete
misconception of the true needs of the business
community, the bill passed by practically
unanimous vote In the Senate it was subjected
to months of apparently endless debate. The re-
suit while an improvement over the form of the
bill as passed by the House of Representatives,
was nevertheless failure to meet the real require
ments of the business community. After conference
between the two Houses, this branch of the Pres
idents program eliminated in the Clayton law, ap-
proved by the President on October IS, 1914. 1t
contained provisions intended to meet the demand
of labor for exemption from the operation of the
Sherman law AS matter of fact, as finally en-
acted, these provisions have left labor in precisely
the same situation it before the Clayton
law was enacted. The force of the Sherman law
had never been exertcd to any appreciabc extent
against labor. On the contrary its force had been
cxertcd, in countless decisions of the large
ly If solely against the great trusts representing
combinations of capital. Expert students Of the
subject agree that there any real need
even from the standpoint Of labor itself for the
enactment of the labor sections of the Clayton law
and they further agree that labor has not bcne-
ftcd as result of the provisions enacted for its
benefit in the Clayton law. So far as labor is
concerned the Clayton law as a years experience
has shown is abortion and might just as we'll
never have been enacted. 1t may be added that
the Presidents program did not comprehend or
forecast any legislation of that nature. Its adop-
ton by Congress in the Clayton law due to
the initiative Of Congress itself based upon public
agitation Of the labor leaders.
The other provisions OF the Clayton law pur-
ported to conform with the Presidents program
These provisions comprised two definitions of
specific acts (price discrimination and tying con-
tracts"), intended to be more specific definitions
of Sherman law violations, prohibitions against
Iintcrockng drcctoratcs and against holding COM
panics, and a wholly unnecessary provision (bc-
cause already fully covered by law making Of
fcers and directors OF a corporation offending the
antitrust laws personally guilty "a provision then
popularity known making guilt personalD.
years experience has shown that the two
definitions have accomplished nothing more than
to add confusion to the previously existing stua-
ton. The provisions to nterocking director
ates, holding companies and making guilt per-
sonal" were likewise unnecessary and, so far as
years experience has disclosed, are dead let
ters"
The Covington bill eliminated, after eight
months OF debate, in what is now known as the
Trade Commission law. The basis of this law as
set forth in the Presidents program was stated
by him as follows:
something than that the menace Of legal
process in these matters be made explicit and in
tegible. They desire the advice. the definite
guidance and information which be supplied
BY an administrative body, interstate trade COM
mission. The opinion of the country would in
stantly approve of such a commission.
There is not single provision in the Trade
| Commission law as finally enacted which corre-
spends to this suggestion. The Federal Trade
! Commission, in official existence for about
year. has been given by that law power what
ever to give any advice guidance. On the con-
trsrv. the Federal Trade Commission has in several
instances refused to pass upon the legality Of pro-
posed cooperative agreements among competitors,
uDon the stated ground that the law which created
the commission has given it authority so to do
The result therefore appears that the principal
reason for the creation OF such a commission. as