ANTI-TRUST LAW.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1331, 8 January 1912, Page 3

ANTI-TRUST LAW.

MR. TAFT'S .VIEWS. UIPOBTANT PRONOUNCEMENT. The devoting of. the Presidential message by, Mr. Tuft exclusive!}- to the trust question is'unusual.-for the initial Message, of a Congressional session, but not .without a precedent/ President Cleveland similarly excluded from his message of Deoember G, 1887, all topics except tariff reduction.- ..The: President has plainly written his message con amore, and with a'deep sense of responsibility. , As long ago as February, 1898, he handed down as presiding Judge of the. Circuit Court the highly important decision under that daw, against the Addyston Pipe arid' Steel combination, which had endeavoured to fix arbitrary prices and parcel out the country among its constituent members—a decision subsequently upheld in all particulars by the .Supreme Court. It may therefore be said that the President has a right'to approach the general question now, as much in the mental attitudo of a judge as of the Chief Executive. It is true that his main opinions, on the Anti-Trust law and its administration, have been made known already in many public speeches; but the discussion in this message is. a fresh and illuminating review of the whole, matter. It is a very important, supplement to last week's review of the origin and purpose of the law by the. chairman of the Senate Committee which drew it up.in 1890.

The President's opinions regarding the Supreme Court's, "rule of reason" , are too familiar to require, fresh discussion; indeed, it is probable that the public debate on- the Anti-Trust law has already passed beyOnd,,the ill-grounded criticism inwhichVne'fissertion of that rule was subjected seven months ago. But he has oiio 'Jveighty comment. on this phase of ■' the:-subject. To "the argument that the . Court, ' under the rule laid'down in the Oil and Tobacco opinions) 'arrogates* "undefined and unlimited discretion" in determining restraint of trade, the.President replies' that "reasonable restraint of trade at common law,, is well understood and is'clearly, defined." Restraint; to-be reasonable,'must be incidental,'not essential, and no, Qourt has the. discretion of interpreting'.' "reasonableness'' in the light of any other test. 'What Mr.-Tift has to 'say of the manner' of dissolving convicted .Trusts is of miich more' 'immediate interest. This message—written immediately before the independent tobacco interests had applied, at yesterday's Supreme Court hearing, for 'reversal of the Circuit Court's decree in the Tobacco Trust dissolution —defends' that-' Circuit , Court decree. Mr. Taft declares emphatically:—. - '. ."I venture to say that not in the history 61. American law has a decree more effective for such X purpose been entered bv a Court than that against the Tobacco Trust." ...,.'.

The Independents, in their • petition to the Lower Court,'.had 'declared .the existing plan unjust, .because it still left large companies in the.field, formed from the disintegrated holdings of- the Trust. But this contention,' the President'.rejoins, "results' from- a' misunderstanding.'of the "Anti-Trust law and, its purpose." That law is not intended ■ "to prevent the accumulation of .largo capjta.l in'.-business enterprises in which.such a combination can' seciire reduced:,cost •of production, sale, and : distribution," but to .break un'.a 'clearly', mohapblistic'cotnbination. ,T,ho.still more familiar argument that-Vthe.present pro rata.and common ownership in all .these conipanies, by former stockholders,of the .Trust, Would ensiire a continuance, of the. same old single contra! .of' all the -companies in which the Trust'ihas by. decree been disintegrated," the President pronounces an erroneous inference from a mistaken view of Hie. scope of judicial injunction's. If any or all of the .shareholders, in the new companies th.is formed 'out of the former, Trust, were'-to attempt by conceited action to control the market, "its prjme. movers and all -its participants vvq'u.M .be at once-subject to-contempt proceedings' and imprisonment of a. summary, character," for violation of a court decree "whose inhibitions ai;e set forth with a detail and-comprehensive-ness unexampled in the history of equity jurisprudence." And. beyond even this, "only a ; short time will inevitably lead to a change in ownership' of the stock, as all opportunity for continued co-operation must disappear." Wo be-, lievo that the Prcsident-'liere sets forth a fact which is perfectly well known and recognised by all unbiased business men.

Mr. Taft does not dismiss outright the >proposal for ir Inderal commission to supervise industrial corporations. But ho stands ■ firmly on the position that such a board, so far as regards the administration of the Anti-Trust law, should merely be advisory, ■ with particular reference to the duty»"of aiding courts in the dissolution and re-creation of trusts within ;the law'—a duty for which tne' courts 'are not -provided with the necessary administrative machinery.

This is very far from the lately familiar proposal for a "board 'of corporations' or a' "court of business men," to be entrusted with the task of applying and interpreting the statute. My. Taft, indeed, displays'littlo sympathy with proposals for amendment or alteration of the law;. He does-not deny that tho evolution of a statute with clearer declaration of' its purposes ■is conceivable, and he speaks not unfavourably of the enactment of a law. "which shall describe and denounce methods of competition which are. unfair." -That, we may observe, would obviously be extension, not limitation, of the Anti-Trust law. and as for a' 1 substitute-'for the law itself, the President our, judgment wholly riglit in remarking' that the discussions of such imagined substitute* "have' produced no T thing but • flittering generalities."—"New York Post.""