Newspaper Page Text
Annual Message Deals
^ With One Subject.
'DEFENDS DECISIONS OF COURT
(d Cases of Standard Oil and
^ Tobacco Companies.
THINKS AMENDMENTS NEEDED
•altevee Present 8t«tute« Good as Par
•• They Go but Suggest! Supple
mental Legislation—For Fed-
sral Corporation Law.
Washington, Dec. 6.—President
Taft's annual message, which was read
IB both houses of congress today, deala
otitnslrely with the anti-trust statute.
* 1 text of tbs message is as fol-
the Senate and House of Repre
sentatives: This message la the first
of several which I shall send to con
gress durlngpfae Interval between the
opening of fu regular sessloi
adjournmeafcfor the
days. The aAunt of
oommu^cated^aa to r
the government the number dTTnipor-
taat subjects ogling for comment by
the transmission to
tlve repbrts by spe-
he it impossible
law distinctions,
ted It 'This is obviously
untrue. 3y Its Judgment every con
tract and combination In reatralnt of
interstate trade made with the purpose
or necessary effect of controlling prices
by atlttyiig competition, or of establish
ing In'wbole or In part a monopoly of
such trade, la oondsmned by tha stat
ute. The moet extreme critics cannot
instance a case that ought to be con
demned under the statute which la not
brought within Its terms as thus con
strued.
The suggeetlon la else made that the
Supreme court by Its decision In tha
last two cases has committed to the
court the undefined and unlimited dis
cretion to determine whether a
of reatralnt of trade Is e
terms of the statute. This
untrue. A reasonable
trade at common law la
jjtood jmd ls^tfTeaftv' defined, it does
noTresClirdie discretion of the court.
It must be limited to accomplish the
purpose of a lawful main contract to
which, in order that It shall be en
forceable at all. It must be Incidental.
If It exceeds the needs of that contract
It Is void.
Tho test of reasonableness was
never applied by the court at com
mon-law to contracts or combinations
or conspiracies In restraint of trade
whose purpose was or whose neces
sary effect would be to stifle competi
tion' to control prices, or establish
monopolies. The courts never as
sumed power to say that such con
tracts or combinations or conspira
cies might be lawful If the parties to
them were only moderate In the use
of the power thus secured and did
not exact from the public too great
and exorbitant prices. It Is true
that many theorists, and others en
gaged In business violating
statue, have hoped that aome sucl
line
United
with a capital
r Under this arrange-
pe different kinds of
e,distributed between
companies, with a di
vision of the prominent brands in tbf
same tobacco products, so as to mi
competition not only possible bufl\
T , hu " the , ? okl 1 D * “‘“T etanwter. The Immediate re.ult of
co business of the country Is divided
so that the present Independent com
panies have 21.39 per cent., while the
American Tobacco company wtfl have
08 per cent., the Liggett and
Meyers 20.05 per cent, the Lorlllard
company 22.82 per cent., and the
Reynolds company 2.66 per cent The
stock of the other thirteen companies,
both preferred and common, has been
taken from the defendant American
Tobacco company and has been dis
tributed among Its stockholders. All
covenants restricting competition have
been declared null and ‘further per
formance of them has been enjoined.
The preferred stock of tbs different
companies has now been given vot
ing power which was denied It
the old on
k Ownership.
ed that tha pres-
common ownership
companies by former
of the trust would Insure
a continuance of the same old single
control of all the companies Into
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This la erroneous and
Is based upon the assumed In efficacy
and lnnoeuouaness of Judicial Injunc
tions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination;
they have different managers, direc
tors, purchasing and sales agents,
all or any of the numerous stockhold
ers, reaching Into the thousands,
tempt to secure concerted action
the companies with a view to the con
trol of the market, their number Is so
large that such an attempt could not
well be concealed and its prime mov
ers and all Its participants would be
at once subject to .contempt proceed
ings and Imprisonment of a summary
definite and as clear as that which the tegrating parts. The circuit courts
— Supreme court Itself lays down In en- and the attorney general were great-
forcing the'statute. ^ * ly aided In framing the decree In tbw*
Supplemental Legislation Needed—Not tobacco trust dissolution by an ex--
the executive,
congress of ex
dal oomml
to Include
able lepgttTadii
that ought to be
tlon of tha nath
first
The Anti-True
Coui
;e of a reason
of the topics
t to the atten-
stature at Its
The Supreme
ta lj|7 last the Buproi
d down c
•the
ed doWn decisions
equity brought by the United States to
enjoin the further maintenance of the
Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri
can Tobacco trust, and to secure thelf
dissolution. The decisions ajd epoch-
making and serve to advise the bull-
nasi world authoritatively of the scope
1 and operation of the anti-trust set of
1190. The decisions do not dspart In
any substantial way from the previous
decisions of the court in construing
4Qd applying this Important statute,
—^but they d^rify those Important deci
sions by further defining the already
^admitted exceptions to the literal con-
7struotlon of the act. By the decreet,
■they furnish a useful precedent aa to
the proper method of dfeallng with the
capital and property of Ijltgaf trusts.
£TbfSf decisions suggtst tbs nsed and
. Svladom of additional or supplemental
: legislation to make It easier for the
-entire business community to square
with the rule of notion and lagallty
thus finally established and to preserve
the benefit, freedom and spur of nt*
eonable competition without Jpts of
foal efficiency or progress.
Decision—
Expression,
section de-
“every contract,
form of truat or
Iracy, In restraint
commerce among the sev-
emj states or with foreign nations,"
and In the second, declares guilty of a
misdemeanor every person who shall
monopolise or attempt to monopolise
or combine or conspire with any other
person to monopoltxe any part of the
trade or commerce of tho several
states or witfc foreign nations."
In two early cases, where the statute
was Invoked to enjoin a transportation
egreement between Interstate railroad
•ampanlafk It was held that It was no
defense to show that the agreement aa
to rates complained of was reasanal
at common law* because It was said
that the statute was directed agalnRt
all contracts and combinations in re
straint of trade whether reasonal at
common law or not It was plain from
she record, however, that the contracts
E plained of in those cases would
have been deemed reasonable at
mon law. In subsequent cases the
•ourt said that the statute should bo
ghren a reasonal construction and re
fused to Include within Its Inhibition
•frtaln contractual restraints of trado
fcrhlch It dominated as Incidental or as
indirect
These cases of restraint of trade that
Ike court excepted from the operation
of the statute were Instances which, at
oominon law, would have been called
reasonable. la the Standard Oil. and
Tobacco cases, therefore, the court
merely adopted the teeta of the com
mon law, and in defining exceptions to
tha Uteral application of the statute,
cnlj substituted for the test of helps
Incidental or Indirect, that ot being
reasonable and this, without varying
In tha slightest the actual scope and
effect of the statute. In other words,
all the cases under the statute which
have now been decided would have
been decided the same way If the court
had originally accepted tn Its construc
tion the rule at common law.
It has been said that the court by ’ To!
introducing into the construction
forcing this
■lightest sanction!
Force and Effectlvenei
Matter of Growth.
We havo been twenty-one years
making this statue effective for the
purposes for which it was enacted.
The Knight case was discouraging
and seemed to remit to-the states the
whole available power to attack and
suppress the evlla of the trusts.
Slowly, however, the errors of that
Judgment was corrected, and only In
the last three or four years has the
heavy hand of the law been laid upon
the great Illegal combinations that
have exercised such an absolute do
minion over many of our Industries.
Criminal prosecutions have been
brought and a number are pending,
but Juries have felt averse to convict
ing for Jail sentences, and Judges have
been most reluctant to Impose such sen
tences on men of respectable standing
In society whose offense has been
regarded as merely statutory. Still,
as the offense becomes better under
stood and the committing of It par
takes more of studied and deliberate
defiance of the law, we can be confl?
dent that juries will convict Individ
uals snd that Jail sentences will be
Imposed.
The Remedy In Equity by Dleeolutlon.
In the Standard Oil case the Su
preme and circuit courte found the
combination to be a monopoly of the
Interstate business of refining, trans
porting. and marketing petroleum and
tfl products, effected and maintained
thrfikgh thirty-seven different cor
porations, the stock of which was
held by a New Jersey company. It
In effect commanded the dissolution
of this combination, directed the
transfer and pro-rata distribution by
the New Jersey company of the
stock held by It In the thirty-seven
corporations to and among Its stock
holders. and the corporations and In
dividual defendants were enjoined
from conspiring or combining to re
store such monopoly; and all agree
ments between the subsidiary corpor
ations tending tn produce or bring
about further violations of the act
were enjoined.
In the Tobncdo case, the court
found that the Individual defendants,
twenty-nine In number, had been en
gaged In a successful effort to ac
quire complete dominion over the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of
tobaeco In this country and abroad,
and thnt this had been done by com
binations made with n purpose and
effect to stifle '‘competition, control
prices, and establish a monopoly, not
only in the manufacture of tobacco,
but also of tin-foil and licorice used
In Ita manufacture and of Its products
of cigars, cigarettes, and snuffs The
tobacco ault presented a far more
complicated and difficult case than
the Standard OH suit for a decree
which would effectuate tho will of the
court and end the violation of the
statute There was here no single
holding company ns In the case of
the Standard OH trust. The main
comrany was the American Tobacco
company, a manufacturing, selling,
and holding company. Tho plan
adopted to destroy the combination
and restore
redlvtslon of,
of the
the com]
and new
purposes
parties to
old.
. Situation After Readjustment.
The American Tobacco company
(old) radjusted capital. $92,000,000;
npetltlon Involved the
capital and plants
«»t between some of
[ constituting the trust
lies organised for the
decree snd made
l numbering, new and
wlir
rious
from 41 per cent
28H per cent, as a minimum, except
In the case of one small company, the
Porto Rican Tobacco company. In
which they will hold 45 per cent The
twenty-nine Individual defendants are
enjoined for three years from buying
any stock except from each other,
and the group is thus prevented from
extending Its control during that pe
riod. All parties to the suit, and the
new companies who are made parties,
are enjoined perpetually from in any
way effecting any combination be
tween any of the companies In viola
tion of the statute by way of resump
tion of the old trust Each of the
fourteen companies Is enjoined from
aoqulring stock In any of tho others.
All these companies are enjoined
having common directors or offi
or commpii buying or selling si
or common offices, sr lending money
to esch other.
8lze ef New Companies.
Objection wss made by certain in
dependent tobacco companies that this
settlement wss unjust because It left
companies with very large capital In
active business, and that the settle
ment that would be effective to put all
on an equality would be a division of
the capital and plant of the trust Into
■mall factions tn amount more nearly
equal to that of each of the Independ
ent companies. This contention re
sults from a misunderstanding of the
anti-trust law and Its purpose. It is
not Intended thereby to prevent the
accumulation of large capital In busi
ness enterprises In which such a com
bination can 'secure reduced cost of
production, sale and distribution. It
Is directed against such an aggreg*
tlon ef capital only when Its purpose
Is that of stifling competition, enhanc
ing or controlling prices and estab
lishing a monopoly. If we shall have
by the decree defeated these purposes
and restored competition between the
large units Into which the capiat and
plant have been divided, we ahlirbave
accomplished the useful purme of
the statute.
Confiscation Net the Purpose of the
Statute.
It Is not the purpose of the
to confiscate the.property and clpltal
of the offending trusts. Methafla of
punishment by fine or imprisonment
of the individual offenders, by fine of
the corporation, or by forfeiture of Its
goods In transportation, are provided,
but the proceeding tn equity is a spe
cific remedy to stop the operation of
the trust by Injunction and prevent
the future use of the plant and capital
In violation of the statute.
Effectiveness ef Decree.
le his-
Repeal or Amendment.
pert from the bureau of corporations*
I ... bo objection—ud Indeed I can Federal Corporation Commleelon Wo~
■ee decided adTan»««ee—In the enact-1
ment o« a law which (ball deecribe and , d0 Bot Mt (ortll ln deU |j tte terms-’
denonnM method._ of competition, j and iect | 0ni 0 , a It atute which rntflbt
supply the constructive legislation per-
which are unfair and are badges of the 1
unlawful purpose denounced Is the
anti-trust law. The attempt and pur
pose to suppress a competitor by un
derselling him st a price se unprofit
able as te drive him oat of business,
or the making of exclusive contracts
with customers trader which they are
required to give up association with
other manufacturers, and numerous
kindred methods for stiffing competi
tion and effecting monopoly, should be
described with sufficient accuracy in a
mlttlng and aiding the formation of'
combinations of capital Into federal;
corporations. They should be subject,
to rigid rules as to their organization/
and procedure, Including effective pub*
licity, and to the closest supervision a*-
to the Issue of stock and bonds by an.;
executive bureau or commission In the-
department of commeroe and labor, to*
which In times of doubt they might-
well submit their proposed plans for
criminal .tatut. on tha on. hjd to ! ,ut “ re *>“»"«•«• « met. h. dlrtlnetlr
enable th. government to ehorten Ite ; understood ,hat lncor P ora,,on under -m-
I
tute
I venture to say that not
tory of American law has a decree
nioro effective fer such av purpose
been entered by a court tbaji that
Alft
"Circuit
against the Tobacco trust.
Judge Noyes said In his.Judgment ap
proving the decree:
"The extent to which It has been
necessary to tear apart this combina
tion and force It Into new forma with
the attendant burdens ought to dem
onstrate that the federal anti-trust
statute Is a drastlo statute which ae-
compllshea' effective reeutta; which ao
long aa it stands on the statute hooka
muat ba obeyed, and which cannot
be disobeyed without Incurring far-
reaching penalties And. on the oth
er hand, the successful refenstruction
the Ugf.lt ud Meyer. Tobacco com-! of tbf. orgnnti.tlon .houljfc tench that
pany (new! capital, 167.000,000; tha lh. elf.ct of onforclng thla m.tute I.
P Lorlllard company (new) capital, not to deelroy. but to reconstruct; not
$47,000,000, and the R. J Reynold! «o demolteh but to re-create
company (old) capital, $7,* cordance with the conditions
an chiefly engaged tn tha >h« congreea has dadarad
Tobaeco
T
m
cate Id
tlons iwl
I shall«
the present situation will necessarily
be actlvitjeby all the companies un
der different managers, and then com
petition n^iat follow, or there will
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another. Only a short time
[will Inevitably lead to a change
ownership of the stock, as all oppor
tunity for continued cooperation must
lllsappear. t Those critics who speak
jit this disintegration In the trust as
mere change of garments have not
Ivan consideration to the Inevitable
wiring of 1 the decree and understand
ttle the personal danger of attempt
'd to evade or set at nanght the sol-
in- Injunction of a court whose ob
is made plain ny the decree and
[hope JftbJbftJons are set forth with a
itall and comprehensiveness unex-
ipled In the history of equity Juris-
idence.
[The effect of these two decisions has
to decrees dissolving the combine
In of manufacturers of electric lamps,
ithern wholesale grocers’ associa-
an Interlocutory decree against
powder trust with directions by
circuit court compelling dlssolu-
, and other combinations of & slra-
hlstory are now negotiating with
department of Justice looking to a
itegratlon by decree and reorgan-
Ion ln accordance with law. It
s possible to bring about these re
lations without general business
banco.
ment for Repeal of the Anti-Trust
Law.
now that the anti-trust act Is
i be effective for the accomplish-
f the purpose of Ita enactment,
met by a cry from many differ-
lartera for Its repeal. It Is said
ibstructlve of business progress,
attempt to restore old-fash
ethods of destructive oompetl
een small units, and to make
» those useful combinations
and the reduction of the cost
luctlon that are essential to con-
iperity and normal growth,
cent decisions the Supreme
_ lea.'eletr that there is noth- iw4iiuui
the statute which condemns invasion i>* u.
Ltlons of capital er mere big-
plant organised to secure
In production and a reduc-
i coat It is only when the,
er necessary effect ot the or*
n and maintenance of the
i er the aggregation of im-
are the stifling of oompetl-
and potential, and the en
hancing of prices and establishing a
monopoly, that the statute Is violated.
Merd else It no sin against the law.
The merging of two or more business
plants necessarily sllmlnates competi
tion between the units thus oomblned.
but* bis elimination Is tn oontraveotion
of tne statuts only whsn ths combina
tion Is made for purpose of ending this
particular competition tn order to se*
cur^ control of. and enhanee, prices
and create a monopoly.
Lack of Deflnitsnsee In the Statute.
The complaint la made of the statute
that It la not sufficiently definite In
Its description of that which Is forbid
den. to enable business men to avoid
Its violation. The suggestion Is, that
we may have a combination of two
corwrattons, which may run on for
years, and that subsequently the attor
ney general may conclude that it was
lolatlon of the statute, and that
which was supposed by the combiners
to be Innocent then turns out to be a
combination tn violation of the atat
ute. The answer to this hypothetical
case is that when men attempt to
aui&ss stupendous capital as will en-
a le them to suppress competition,
a ntrol prices and establish a monop
n y they know the purpose of their
a ts. Men do not do such a thing
without having it clearly in mind. If
v hat they do Is merely for the purpose
0 reducing the cost of production,
v ithout the thought of suppressing
ompetitlon by use of the bigness of
te plant they are creating, then they
jmnot be convicted at the time the
1 plon Js made, nor can they be con •
' l$ted later, unless It happen that later
i n they conclude to suppress compel!
on and take the usual methods for
olng so, and thus establish for them
elves a monopoly. They can. ln such
case, hardly complain if the motive
vhich subsequently Is disclosed la at
ributed by the court to the original
combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
| Much Is said of the repeal of this
statute and of constructive legislation
Intended to accomplish the purpose
and blase a clear path* for honest mer-
chants and business men to follow. It
may be that such a plan will be
evolved, but 1 submit that the discus
sions which have been brought out In
recent days by the fear of the con
tinued execution of the anti-trust law
task by 'prosecuting single misde
meanors Instead of an entire con
spiracy, and, on the other hand, to
serve the purpose of pointing out
more in detail to the business com
munity what must be avoided.
Federal Incorporation Recommended.
In a special message to congress
on January 7, 1910, I ventured to
point out the disturbance to business
that would probably attend the disso
lution of these offending trusts,
said:
“But auch an Investigation and pos
sible prosecution of corporations# we ^ b® Invested also with the duty al-
wbose prosperity or destruction affects
the comfort not only of stockholders
but of millions of wage earners, em
ployes, and associated tradesmen must
necessarily tend to disturb the con
fidence of the business community,
to dry up the now flowing sources of
capital from Its places of hoarding,
and produce a halt In our present
prosperity that will cause suffering
and strained circumstances among
the Innocence many for the faults of
the guilty few. The question which
wish In this message to bring clear-
’ to the consideration and discus
sion of congress Is whether, In order
to avoid such a possible business
danger, something cannot be done by
which these business combinations
may be offered a means, without great
financial disturbance, of # changlng the
character, organization, and extent of
their business Into one within the
lines of the law under federal control
and supervision, securing compliance
with the anti-trust statute.
"Generally, in the Industrial com
binations called ‘Trusts.’ the prin
cipal business Is the sale of goods in
many states and In foreign markets;
ln other words, the Interstate and for
eign business far exceeds the busi
ness done ln any one state. This
fact will Justify the federal govern
ment ln granting a federal charter
to such a combination to make and
sell ln interstate and foreign com
merce the products of useful manu
facture under such limitations as will
secure a compliance with the anti
trust law. It Is possible so. toi frame
a statute that while It oj^rs ’protec
tion to a federal compa^V ngalnst
harmful, vexatious, ; and
federal law could not exempt the com- -
pany thus formed and Its Incorporators
and managers from prosecution under-
the anti-trust law for subsequent llle- •
gal conduct, but the publicity of lt»-
procedure and the opportunity for fre
quent consultation with the bureau or*
commission in charge of the incorportu
tion as to the legitimate purpose of itac
transactions would offer it a*! great se
curity against. successful prosecution*'-
for violations of the law as would be'
practical or wise.
Such a bureau or commisqlon might.
Ject It to reasonable taxation and
control by the states with respevt to
Ita purely loeal business
"Corporations organised under thla
act should be prohibited from so-
quiring snd holding stock ln other
corporations (except for special rea
sons, upon approval by the proper
federal authority), thus avoiding the
creation under national auspices of the
holding company with subordinate
corporations ln different states, which
has been such an effective ageney la
the creation of the great trusts sad
monopolies.
"If the prohibition of the anti-trust
act against combinations In restraint
of trade Is to be effective.!/ enforced.
It is essential that the national gov
ernment shall provide for the creation
of national corporations to carry on a
legitimate business throughout the
United States. The conflicting laws of
the different states of the Union with
resrect to foreign corporations makes
It difficult. If not impossible, for one
corporation to comply with their re
quirements so as to carry on business
In a number of different states."
I renew the recommendation of the
onnetraent of a general law providing
for the voluntary formation of cor
porations to engage in trade and com
merce among the states and with for
eign nations. Every argument which
as then advanced for such n law.
ready referred to, of aiding courts fx».
the dissolution and,recreation of trusts*
within the law. It should be an execu
tive tribunal of the dignity and power-
of the comptroller of the currency or*
the Interstate commerce commission,.,
which now exercise supervisory power'
over Important classes of corporations^
under federal regulation.
The drafting of such a federal incor
poration law would offer ample oppor
tunity to prevent many manifest evlla-
In corporate management today. In
cluding Irresponsibility of control In.
the hands of the few who are not ths*-
real owners.
Incorporation Voluntary.
I recommend that the federal char
ters thus to be granted shall be volun
tary, at least until experience* Justifies,
mandatory provisions. The benefit to-
be derived from the operation of great
businesses under the protection of*
such a charter would attract all who-
are anxious to keep within the lines,
of the law. Other large combinations
that fall to take advantage of the fed
eral Incorporation will not have a-
right to complain if their failure te-
ascribed to unwillingness to submit
their transactions to the careful scru
tiny, competent supervision and pub
licity attendant upon the enjoyment
of such a charter.
Supplemental Legislation Needed.
Tbq. opportunity thus suggested for
federal incorporation. It seems to me.
Is,suitable constructive legislation
needed to' facilitate the squaring of *
great industrial enterprises to Ahe rule-
of action laid down by the ajftl-trust
law. This statute la construed br>
the Supreme court must continue to-
be the line of distinction for legltl-
unless we are"!
from all business and reduce It to tmo
common system of regulation or con
trol of prices like that which now pre
vails with respect to public utilities,,
and which when applied to all busi
ness would bs a long step toward stato
socialism.
Importance of the AntLTruct Act.
The anti-trust act It the expression
of the effort of a freedom-loving peo
ple to preserve equality of opportun
ity. It Is the resnlt of the confident
determination of such a people to
maintain their future growth by pre
serving uncontrolled and unrestricted*
the enterprise of the Individual, hla
Ingenuity, his Intelligent# and his In
dependent courage.
Fcr twenty years or more this stat
ute has been upon the statute bodk.
AH knew of Ita general purpose and
approved. Many of its violators were
cynical over Its assumed Impotence.
It seemed Impossible of enforce-.,
ment. Slowly the mills of the courts!:
ground, and only gradually did thema-!
Jesty of the law nssert Itself. Many]
of its statesmen-authors died before it|
became a living force, and they and,
others saw the evil grow whlfb theyjj
hr.d hoped to destroy. Now, its effl-l;
cncy Is seen; now Its power is heavy;
LI
now Its object Is near achievement. ,
Now we hear the call for Its repeal on ■
the p,PR thnt 14 * ntPrfer * f w,th bus!-’
and every explanation which was at i ne8s prosperity, and we are advised ln
that time offered to possible objec-1 most general terms how, by some
tlon., h.T. been conflrroed by our «x- j other statute snd in some other way.
perlence .Ine. the enforcement of | the evil we nre Juet .tamping out can
the anti-trust statute has resulted In
the actual dissolution of active com
mercial organizations.
It Is even more manifest now than
It was then that the denunciation of
conspiracies In restraint of trade
should not and does not mean the de
nial of organizations large enough to
be Intrusted with our Interstate and
foreign trade. It has been made mere
clear now than It was then that a
purely negative statute like the anti
trust law may we!l be supplemented
by specific provisions for the build
ing up and regulation of legitimate
national and foreign commerce.
Government Administrative Experts
Needed to Aid Courts In Trust
Dlaaolutlona.
The drafting of the decrees la the
dissolution of the present trusts, with
a view to their reorganisation Into
be cured, if we only abandon this work
of twenty years and try another ex
periment for another term of years. *
It is said that the act has not done
good. Can this be said tn the face of
the effect of the Northern Securities
decree?
That decree was ln no way so dras
tic or inhlbitive in detail as either the
Standard Oil decree or the tobacco de
cree; but did’it not stop for all time
the then powerful movement toward;
the control of nil the railroads or tbe t
country In a single hand?
Such a one-man power could not
have been a healthful instance ln the
republic, even though exercised under
♦he general supervision of an Inter-
state commission.
Do we desire to make such ruthless
combinations and monopolies lawful?
When all energies are directed, not
toward the reduction of the cost
legitimate corporations, has made It i production for the public benefit by a
especially apparent that the courts 1 healthful competition, but toward new
are not provided with the adminlstra-. ways and means for making perma-
tlve machinery to make the neces- nent ln a few hands the absolute con-
■ary Inquiries preparatory to re- trol of the conditions and prices pre-
organization, or to pursue such In- vailing ln the whole field of industry,
quirlea. and they should be empow- then lndlvkfhal enterprise and effort
hsve produced nothing but glittering ered to Invoke the aid of the bureau will be paralyzed and the spirit ef
generalities and have offered no line of corporations in determining the commercial freedom will be dead,
of distinction or rule of action aa suitable reorganisation of the dlsln- WM. H. TAFT.