Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1919-05-19
Laying'Down the law

HE opinion given by the Attorney
General on the questions of law raised
by the Secretary OF Commerce when the lat
ter appointed the industrial commission for
the liking of prices and the sterilization Of
business, deserves the attention of all bust
ness interests which might have assumed Il
relaxation of the antitrust laws during the
reconstruction period just as they were re-
Taxed during the period of the war Mr..
Palmcrs ruling. aside from the fact that it
is the first to deal with these questions which
has come from that official has Il peculiar
significance just at this time.
He does not concern himself with the wis
dom of combinations for the promotion OF
business for the encouragement OF
stabilized conditions. He insists, and prop
ery that it is not his function to pass judg-
ment on that phase OF the matter. His part
is to interpret the law and to furnish to the
government safe rule to follow in what
ever movement it may undertake involving
the fixing OF maximum prices or in bringing
together interests which may accept its in
vitation TO abandon for time competitive
conditions.
1t will be remembered that the indust rial
commission was created by executive order
and authorized TO agree with producers of
staples on Level of prices which would put
the business of the country upon a stable
basis. No power resided in the commission
" ciicCI tHlS. All IL COulQ no was 10 neSO-
tiate with business interests for a voluntary
agreement, and before proceeding to place
any such agreements into effect, the Score
tary of Commerce called the Attorney
General FOR an opinion to the legality of
the proposed plan with particular reference
to the antitrust statutes.
In answer, Mr. Palmer has stated that,
from whatever viewpoint the Redfield plan
may be considered. it is unauthorized by law
am mn, lo
courts could not give immunity TO the in
forests participating in the movement, even
II those interests were invited to do so by a
department of the government and even il
their act were entirely voluntary.
The Mtorncy-G encral finds that such
price-fNing as was proposed would have been
subvcrsivc of competition. and he shows
clearly that in laying down the rule for tho
guidance of business Congress insisted that
competitive conditions should exist lie cites
the Sherman law. the Federal Trade Com
mission act and the Clayton act as affirma-
tive instances Of this policy, adding that Con-
gress alone has the power to undo what it
has done III addition to the law on the
subject the Acknowledgement cites almost in
Vulnerable decisions of the Federal courts TO
the same effect.
1t is very clear, therefore, that reconstruct
ton processes cannot be carried out legally
through any agreements combinations ar
contracts even where initiated by an execu-
tive branch of the government If commerce
is to have new rule Of conduct that rule
must be laid down by Congress. The De-
partment Of Justice, under Mr.. Palmer, will
not consent 10 any evasion of the law in
order to facilitate trade expansion or trade
promotion or even 10 make possible trade
sterilization.
This means that the great commercial in
tcrcStS which feel that the Sherman law and
It's amendments should be ovcrhauled must
so straight 10 the legislative power for their
remedy. None may be expected from the
Department of Justice