The Washington herald., 1916-02-16

little over year. Enough time has therefore
elapsed to justify taking account of what they
have accomplished. The business community will
readily indorsc the statement, in which all expert
students of the subject agree, to the effect that
these laws have made no substantial change
in the situation.
The basis of this important legislation was the
message which President Wilson addressed to
Congress in January, 1914. He said:
"The business of the country awaits =. =.
further and more explicit Legislative definition of
the policy and meaning of the existing anti
trust law ....... And the business of the
country desire something more than that the men
ace of legal process in these matters be made cx-
plict and Ineligible. They desire the advice, the
definite guidance and information which be
supplied by an administrative body, an Interstate
Trade Commission"
The Clayton law was enacted by Congress in
response to the first Of these two rccommenda-
tons; and the Trade Commission law in response
to the second.
A years experience has shown that the first of
the Presidents two recommendations represented
something which the business community did not
need but which Congress nevertheless gave them
in the shape of the Clayton law; and that the
second represented something which the business
community did need, but which Congress failed to
give them although it attempted to do so in the
Trade Commission law.
When the President said that "thc business of
the country awaits further and more explicit legis
lative definition" of the Sherman Antitrust law,
he misconccivcd the situation. He apparent
ly attempting reflect the widcs spread disapproval
with which the plain business interests of the
country regarded the drastic enforcement of the
Sherman law. This disapproval found expression
in the inaccurate phrase that under the Sherman
law the plain business interests did know what
they could do or what they could not do" From
this the President made the deduction that the
Sherman law uncertain and needed more ex-
plict definition. AS matter of fact in repeated
and powerful decisions of the Supreme Court, the
Sherman law was left in no uncertainty whatever
Its meaning was plain to the effect that all CO.
operation among business competitors, whether
great trusts or small business units, was unlawful
This lack Of discrimination between the mscon-
duct of the great trusts the hand and bene-
fetal cooperative agreements among small business
units on the other, both OF which alike con-
demned by that law, puzzled moderate-szcd bust
ness 1t could not understand why the laws Of the
land should forbid wholesome and beneficial CO.
operative effort which neither aimed at nor could
attain the position of monopoly, and why such
laws should, by inference, prefer destructive cut
throat" competition. Consequently in inaccurate
phrase moderatc-sizcd business complained that it
did not know what it could do. Expert students of
the subject all agree that the trouble lay not at all
in any doubt to what moderatc-sized business
units could do, but rather in the fact that such
units could do nothing in the way of cooperative
effort without violating the Sherman law. The
President msconceiving this situation, asked Con-
gress to pass law which should give more ex-
plicit legislative definition" of the Sherman law,
whereas what he should have asked for was a re-
taxation of the rigor of the Sherman law SO as to
permit beneficial cooperative agreements among
moderate-sized business units where monopoly was
not aimed at
Congress responded clumsily by enacting the
only two definitions (and those very inadequate),
of specific acts which would constitute violation
of the Sherman law, but made no attempt to meet
the urgent necessity upon the part of moderate
sized business units for cooperative action so as
to avoid wasteful uneconomic and ruinous compe-
ttion The Clayton law has, therefore, neither met
the purpose declared by President Wilson, nor
which is more important, has it met the paramount
need under which the plain business interests of
this country have, been laboring for ameora-
trn of the Antitrust law to permit sensible
cooperation.
The futty of the Trade Commission law is
even more easily The Presidents recon-
II endaton that Trade Commission should
BE- established in order to give "advice, definite
guidance and information" to the business men of
the country. Here again he msconceved the stu
alton. He was misled by the popular phrase that
the plain business interests did not know what
they could do and what they could not do" He
ought therefore, to have commission appointed
which would give "advice, definite guidance and
information" The debates in Congress show that
the same confusion which existed in the mind Of
the President likewise existed in Congress. The
result of interminabe debate on the subject
was the enactment Of a law establishing a COM