The Dominion FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1913. THE ANTI-TRUST LAW IN AMERICA.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1680, 21 February 1913, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1913. THE ANTI-TRUST LAW IN AMERICA.

A day or two ago it was reported from New York that a number of officials of a trading company had been sent to prison for a breach, of the Sherman law against Trusts. This is the latest of many proofs.that this measure, for bo long regarded as an idle and unworkable piece of legislation, is after all a very powerful weapon in the right hands. During his presidency Mr. Roosevelt attempted, or appeared to attempt, to enforce the law, but he achieved practically nothing, and towards the of his term he was condemning the Act as inadequate, and drawing a confusing . distinction between "good" Trusts and "bad" [Trusts. Mr. Taft, however, and his able At-torney-General, Mb. Wickersham, took the view that the Act was not concerned .with "goodness" of "badness" in Trusts, but simply laid , it down that conspiracies in restraint of trade wei'o_ bad in themselves and should bo punished. Mr. Wickersham displayed such vigour and ability in prosecuting some' of the largest Trusts—softie of which had laughed at the Act for years—that the Supreme Court discovered that tho Act was a strong and effective measure. The successive stages in the vindication of the measure, which is to tho more pretentious and complex antiTrust laws of other countries as a straight steel bar is to an ornamental iron gate, make an interesting study. Last month a decision was given which reVealed in the Act a still wider scope. Mr. Jas. A. Pattbn, the famous cotton operator, was indicted, together with three business associates, for conspiring on January 1, 1910, to "corner" the ootton crop. The facts wore not in dispute. The defendants did corner cotton, with the result that the price went up from 13i cents in November, 1909, to what lias been called the "utterly preposterous" figure of 20 cents within a year. On various grounds tha Circuit Court dismissed the charges, the principal maoiu

being—(l) that the conspiracy did not belong to tho class in which the members are engaged in intcr-State trade; (2) that running a corner, in-, stead of restraining trade, tends, temporarily at least, to stimulate jt; and (3) that the obstruction of interstate trade and commerce resulting from the conspiracy would be so'indirect as not to be a restraint in the sense of the statute. Appeal was made to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the lower Court's decision was set aside. The paragraph in the Supreme Court's judgment which attracted most attention was tho following:—

"It well may be that running a corner tends for a time to stimulate competitioii; but this docs not prevent it frorii being, a forbidden restraint, for. it also operates to thwart the commodity froih the normal current of trade, to enhance the price artificially, to hftmpcr users and consilium in satisfying their needs, and to produce practically, the same evils as docs the suppression of competition.". The decision means, of course, that thfe law can be set in motion against ahy atteriipt to corner any commodity, whether by operations on the Stock Exchange or by simply with : holding supplies from the'market, with intent to inflate prices; According to the. Sdlicitor-Genbral, "the minute a pool or corner is started it can nbw be stopped by injunction,", artd tlie Act can prevent cornering •operations without "in any wise interfering with legitimate sales for future delivery whether 'long' or 'short.-' "■ It is noteworthy that most' of the important American : newspapers welcomed the Court's ruling, which some of the more ehthusidstic of them described as "the consumer's Magna Oharta." This may be taken as evidence that the American,public is realising • that the national machine suffers real injury from some of the commercial methods of the large operators in business. The strongest ground for condemning the now 'cehtralisation / of business (a -phrase-that sufficiently covers ajl Trufct and. corner operations), is; not the hardship directly' inflicted on the public (though that is undesirable enough), but the actual economic losi to the nation as a whole involved in all unnatural and .artificial' wrenches to trade. In his first flush of pleasure oyer the Court's decision, the . Attorney-General > sai'd .that.it would enable'the problem of the high cost of living to be solved. This, of course, is an over-statement of the possibilities of the. new protection against "corners," for. in general the price Of food, rent, clothing, and labour is determined' :by other things. But since every "corner" not only causcs a temporary rise of prices to the consumers of the, affected commodity; but also leaves over a'residuum of loss from the disturbance, of trade, there is a littlfi truth In Mil. WiCKEitsnAii's. state-, ment. The main point to be noted, however, is that as time passes the power and effectiveness \>f the onceneglected SiiermAn law become increasingly more plain. ...