Newspapers / The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, … / Sept. 19, 1911, edition 1 / Page 7
Part of The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
TE5 CHARLOTTE raws. SEPTEMBER , 9. 1911 ~ 1 President Speech A i TqJVs on “Trusts’ D et1 011 t|r‘AS'Cciated Press, r-. roi'. Mirh.. Sept. 19.—Following ^peeoh of President Taft on T tf:" Presidtnt't Speech. iow Citizens: ' 89 "Trtists.” During the last 0 have had two great decisions ^iinreme court of the United Thev are epoch- making, and .,11c has not yet come to realize •' that those decisions are cer- • have. Ft is not that the con- '1 which the court has put upon -* is different from that which lembers of the profession, and uibordlnnte courts, and Indeed rtmo court itself, had before in- a? ?he proper construction of • but it Is that it is now 'ftled, by two fully considered the supreme court held that it was a mere Incidental restraint^ 1. e., Inci- deut&l to the sale of the good will, an^d so whTj not witliin the statute, ,Tnis would have been the same at ropose to take up the question i common law, where from time tmme- as occupied the attention of such a restraint as this has been ^ i»»r!can people for now twenty to be reasonable because limited hit of industrial combinations the necessity of preserving the good will which the vender was selling, and which but for such an agreement would be worth nothing. In other words, the supreme court in this case gave a reasonable construction to the statute and eliminated from its oper- the Tobacco cases, there is not one who has criticized them that can for mulate a contract la restraint of trade that ought to come within the statute that does not come within it under the decision of the supreme court. Defends Court Decision. It is said that the supreme court has read something into the statute that 1? in respect to two of thej^®^ there before; that it has in- and most powerful of these I the word “reasonable” before lone, what their illepallty restraints of trade, when the same court had eaid that this could not be properly done, because congress had evldentlj' not intended to include such a limiting word in the statute. This is not fair to the court. It is ‘n. snd how they are to be in view of the finding that • ille^iral and io violate the pro of the ?o-called anti-trust or act true Cl. vwv., it JO who do not understand the tiiat the court., in the early days of the Tl'.e^e decisions and really do *?=and the law have a great which is intended to lead to the belief that in some ,aied on Pas?e Two.) r) ’r the supreme court has f>' the giafntc and prevent- ■ ation acpinst objectionable fV> I*. ri' construction of the statute, had said that it could not limit the statute in effect by excluding from its operation what was deemed reasonable at com mon law. But as other eases arose it found it necessary to make exceptions to The literal operation of the words iin/ii wv.uaMITT “restraint of trade,” and it did so by s t-pd#' combinations and ;exceptine: what was minor, or inciden- yrthing Is further from 01* iiitiii'ect. and including only those cases where the chief object of Ftatiite was passed In (the contract or combination was the , pxpiessions uspd in it to de-, ^“^traint. In doing so the court said ' >ct and what it was pro-]that it must give the statute a reason- 'hrrrin to dcnonnce as nnlaw-jable construction and not one leading n f nev»-, 'v.it they were suf!l-i*o absurd or ridiculous results. In the d nr--^ indefinite to require' ^3st two cases the court did not orstnif'fion to fettle their.change the su1)stance of the reason- ror^^'OFs was d^«Hng with iug and scope of the previous decis- ’rrr in rrspcct to which it ions, but only treated the exceptions q that the legislators i previously termed ‘‘incidental and in- ' -.eve not clep.r ns to the'direct,” as excluded frorn the opera- •--rions of the meaning of the|tion of the statute in the light of rea- r‘■- ftatr o they were j)ass-|Con. i. e., in conformity to the evil t.r.r'v I'oro w?s au evil sought to be reached. Now, in what h vr'] TO restrain by the way has this Injured the public weal? of iliif. and tlacy relied. What combinations or arrangements . ..vr'F in their construction! ^an escape under this interpretation dedce about Its opera-; that any sensible man would wish to ould prevent have condemned? Did the court not -■ f'oti i'rinr yo wide in its condemn the Standard Oil Co.. the ! as to involve absurdity , father of all trusts, in the history of -• rar ir '. ’e The early de- v'hich every form of criminal ille2:«l- ipr ti h'v c?n not be said.ity was practiced? Did it not. on the n fortnnn e. The decision! other hand, condemn the Tobacco - ’inown a? the Sugar Trust Trust, of much later origin and fram ed under the advice of cunning coun sel for the very purposes of evading the condemnation of the statute and at the same time securing and enjo}- ing the monopoly the framers of the statute intended to prevent and pun ish? ' Let me renew again the invitation fo any of the vocifeious tcvitics of tlio deciPion of the supreme court to use their legal imaginations and state the facts of a case not condemned within the rule of construction put ugon the statute by the supreme court, but in cluded within their construction of it, which reP.sonable men would think it wise or proper to make criminal. Xow. I desire to call attention to a very brosd distinction that many per- aors have failed to draw' or perceive between a reasonable construction of the statute which the supreme court has insisted upon and the introduction of the word “reasonable” in the etar- ute 80 as to lead to a result by which combinations for the purpose of re straining trade with a vlev/ to con trolling prices and maintaining a mo nopoly could be held to be reasonable and thus lawful. Until the decision of the Fupreme court in these last two cases there w’as a clearly defined hope in the minds of many business men who had reached the conclusion that it was impossible to conduct bu siness on a free competitive basis, and that it w'as necessary to secure mono polistic control of prices and compe tition in order to make business rea sonably profitable, that in some way or other the statute could be constru ed so as to make it apply only to un reasonable monopolies’, unreasonable exclusion of competition and control of prices. They had in their minds the thought that in some way or other a standard could be set by which if those who enjoyed the monopoly and the restraint of competition and the control of prices did not abuse their power to the point of seeking from the public exorbitant profits, their arrange ments could be held to be only reason able and not within the statute or pun ishable by law. In my message of January 7, 1910, on the Interstate com merce and anti-trust laws and federal incorporation, I used this language: Quotes From His Message. Many people conducting great busi nesses have cherished a hope and a belief that some way or other a line may be drawn between “good trusts and "bad trusts,” and that it is possi ble by amendment to the anti-trust law to make a distinction under which good combinations may be permitted to organize, suppress competition, con trol prices, and do it all legally if only they do not abuse the power by taking too great profit out of the business. They point with force to certain no torious trusts as having grown into power through criminal methods by the use of illegal rebates and pla n cheating, and by various acts utterly violative of business honesty or mor ality, and urge the establishment of some legal line of separation by which “criminal trusts” of this kind can punished, and they, on the other hand, be permitted under the Jaw to carry on their business. Now the public, and especially the business Pubjic, ought to rid themselves of the I^a that such a distinction is practicable or can be Introduced into the statute. Certainly under the present anti-trust case—was really a nnd one which seem- ' r.i' r the oi>crarion of the r It onon’irrcecl the organlza- ••rv’iinni iiT."* which the same 3 si^r ■ *o’ind violate the stal- Ty. 'ov.lfi nr>» be effective- to he r^nrt because the not v. n i lO’ pily made up. ‘ it i“r‘' rising were treated " rn in «nch a way as to ’’ r- iT'iprerF’f'n ^hat the operation - law would be most reRtricted. ■ of the limits of federal juris- Indeed. some low ofTlcers of '^■•nmen did not h'sltste to say ■ V thin decision there was lit- of r'^pchinn; the evil aimed at ■ action. It has reqult- •’rs of litigation to make the ’ Tir. But now \t Is clear. iZ^i'lair.s Trust Decisions. r-'.t ’’♦tenr.'»t to give It a r-ii’;e interijretation. but I • i -' ■! d'’rnrfin^ from the de- i'. ‘T the court to say that they -on vac*^ in restraint of trade, t’.'.e purpose of excluding T '>n controlling prices, or of >' f 0 monnpoly. in part or in (O'l’rnry to the statute and ':•> Injunction and indict- :"• hi? stBtutf in the federal i ”0 i' pfferts interstate trade, would like to ask Mr. Bryan the other publicists and .lour- have licen denouncing this f ie surrender of the righta v-'il'!e and ft usurpation of ju- -:o tell the pi^lic what •.iintract or restraint of In- trade he would condemn niiH not be condemned within Inition of he court. The diffi- • " the literal construction of * .110 is that it would denounce any minor or incidental re- • =c ,,f trade, which made the ridiculous and weakened its ■ nd lent support to the criti- ^nd oontemptuotis treatment of ' le by those who were oppos- * 't. passspe and enforcement. “Reasonable” Restraint. Per in*’ance, take the instance cited t federal circuit Judge in which he ^hat under the literal construc- • The statute which must be en- r od, if ther#* were two persons do- ' - w,"gon-express business across a ■ line and they united in a part- ^ ; tip. the union in the partnership " lid be a restraint of Interestate ' 5de in violation of the statute. Such *: is really a reductio ad adsur- ■ r and no one who was in favor of the statute effective for the ’ '■ nosrs for which it was passed, and any intelligent appreciation of a? the statute was intended to ac- •^juiplish and what it meant, would '''■■jTftnd for such a construction. It Is that in one of the decisions of ^he suf rerae court there was a state- ‘•>rit made that the term “reason- " >” could not be introduced Into the '■ tute because congress had not put ' ’h re. but the very same court, and very i;ame judge, when a casfe »e presenting a restraint of trade ’ nmst be condemned as unlawful ‘ 0 U eral meaning were to be given ^ ’he r>tatute, said in so many words ’ It must be reasonably construed, "1 ‘hat it must not be held to Include ''Tf, ictB that were merely incidental ’irainTR of trade and were not made that purpose. In one of these a man owned some steamboats did an Interstate business on the * !o liver. He wished to sell out. He ^ p'^11 out. and in the sale of the ii’uoats he wished to sell the good ' of the line which he had been nin? Accordingly he stlpu- that he would not himself engage that business between those same =ints for a certain number of years. ‘ 'Jb was interstate business and his jntract was In restraint of trade, but CASTOR IA For Infaatc and ChildreiL Tin Unil You Han Always Bmglit Bears the Sigziature af law no BUcli dlstinctlcJn exists. It has been proposed, however, that th€^word “reasonable” should be made a part of the statute, and then that it should be left to the court to say what is a rea sonable restraint of trade, what Is a reasonable suppression of competition, what Is a reasonable monopoly. I ven ture to think that this Is to put into the hands of the court a power impos sible to exercise on any consistent principle which will insure the uni formly of decision essen,tial to just Judgment. It ts to thrust upon the courts a burden that they have no pre cedents to enable them to carry, and to give theVn a power approaching the arbitrary, the abuse of which might in volve our whole jadlcittl system in dis aster. How to Effect a Remedy, This paragraph has been quoted and spread on the record of the senate on the motion of a senator who consider ed this to be at variance with the de cisions of the supreme court. Instead of being at variance, it is in exact ac cord with those decisions. Again, from those who have given up free competition as an economic force that ought to be encouraged or enforced, and who are utterly opposed to the spirit of the anti-trust law, we have frequently heard the question,. “Well, suppose you convict those large combinations under the stafhte, what are you going to do about it? You can, perhaps, send some men to the penitentiary for creating these combi nations which have cheapened the cost of production and given you most of your foreign trade and much of your prosperity, but what are you going to do with the capital invested, the plant, and the organizatiOTi ? You can confiscate it and ruin your country by a panic, but you can’t divide such com binations into their component parts again, for the lines of division have dUappeared into a common owner ship.” The court has not met the issue and the queries presented by the doubters and the scoffers. It has vindicated the majesty of the law% has illustrated the wonderful electlcity and adaptability of remedy by injunction in equity, and has at the same time manifested a due, regard for the w'elfare of the innocent business men and the community at large, w'ho, in a cataclysm caused by the confiscation of such enormous cap ital as are Involved In these combina tions and a suspension of the legiti mate part of their business, would be buried with them in a common ruin. The court has exhibited a courage in facing the necessary results in en forcing the statute that, instead of prompting an attack on it, ought to make every American proud that we have such a tribunal. It is now en forcing its decree against the Stand ard Oil Co. and against the Tobacco' Co., and it is making those great com binations divide themselves into ac tually competing parts under such pro visions in the decree that an injunc tion shall be constantly of the old re lations of a monopoly. This was an easier matter in reference to the Standard Oil Co., because it was easy to divide up the various companies that were united by the ownership of stock of all the companies in a single holding company. In the Tobacco Co. the decree could not be worked out so easily, and it will be necssary to sepa rate the properties owned by single companies and to distribute these plants into different and differing ownerships in order to create compe tition between them and maintain that competition by the power of a continu ing injunction against any future un ion, or anv agreement to avoid future competition. It needed these two great decisions to teach the business public that at least not in the supreme tri bunal of this country would the claim be listened to, that in this day and generation we have passed beyound tne possibility of free competition as consistent with proper business growth, or that we have reached a time when only regulated monopoly and the fixing of prices by governmen tal authority are consistent with fu ture progress. We did get along with competition; we can get along with it. We did get along without monopoly; we can get along without It; and the business men of this country must square themselves to that necessitj'’. Either that, or we must proceed to state socialism and vest the govern ment with power to run every busi ness. The decision of the supreme court is in the highest interest of the public, and I am glad to think that business men w'ho have been violating the trust law are now being made to see the necessity for putting their hou ses in order, changing their original organizations, giving up the idea that it is necessary to control markets in order to make profits, and reverting to the old principle of free competition, in which all limit upon it to prevent its being excessive must be self-impos ed by the good sense of each competi tor and not by any arrangement or contract between competitors or se cret stipulation or wink or nod. Effect of Decision. The decision of the supreme court as it grows to be understood in the near future will be a signal for the vol untary breaking up all combinations in restraint of trade within the inhibition of the statute, and will, I hope, lead to a complete revulsion of feeling on the part of the business men of this coun try and to a clear understanding by them of the llmitaUons that must be imposed by them upon any business combinations made by them in the fu ture. The operation of the statute has illustf-ated the slowness of judicial pro cedure, and of this I have often made complaint; but in the settlement of issues of this importance two decades are no great length of time, and if in that period we shall have etan^edout an evil which would certafaily have carried us to socialism as a reartlon from the vicious control of the few, the thne spent, the effort, and the liti gation are worth the cost. There have been times when among others I have thought that the enfor^ent of the law might have been facilit^ed had the courts visited its breach with severer punishment, but “Though the mills of the gods grind slowly, yet pey grind exceeding small,” and without the severity that some of ns iirg^ and would have been ^lad to see used, a revolution in business methods where they have heretofore been vio lative of the statute will be accom plished, and with least disturbance to business which is lawful. In a special message wi the subject of trusts which I sent to congress Jan. 7, 1910, I said; “It Is the duty and the purpose oi the executive to direct an investiga tion by the department of Justice, through the grand jury or otherwise, into the history, organization, and pur poses of all the industrial oompsnies with respect to which there is any rea sonable ground for suEpIcion that they Wbra Ymi Yswfi a Good Deal In the day thne, and feel dull» lazy and discotrraged, you have every symptoni ^ a ti^d liver. Ssniniofts Red Z Liver Regulator (The Powder Form) is a fine tonic for a disordered liver. It acts prongitly* The bilious im purities which have inter fered with the free action of the liver are driven out, the stomach is cleansed and strengthened sfo tliat it can re^har habit, re-estaWisbed. It Is a splendid medick»i for the whole system. Promc^es a f^ng of energy,, mental activity and cheermi s^iirits. Sold by Dealers Price* Large Package, SI.W Ask for tbe reaiuiM iHtb the Rod Z oB tb« U^l. li you eaaoo: set It, rcn^ to ttb will seed it by m?!*. ^oatpald. Stmaom Uata Rcfulstoi U aisapuc m Ug!ii4 ferai for tbosc who prafof it rtice S1.00 p«i bottle. Look for tbe Red Z bbcL ). H. ZE1S.1N & CO>« Fi»q>Ktetora St. Louis • Missouri —————— ^ r- ' ■ have been organized for a purpose, and are conducting business on a plan which is in violation of the anti-trust law. The work is a heavy one, but it is not beyond the power of the depart ment of justice if sufficient funds are furnished to carry on the investiga tions and to pay the counsel engaged in the work.” Going After Trusts. I wish to repeat this now, and to say further that the attorney general has Instituted investigations into all the Industrial companies above described, and that these are in various stages of completion. snsLpsbleio 1-uo hrdlu shrdlu Under these conditions, I am en tirely opposed to an amendment of the anti-trust law. It is now a valuable government asset and instrument. Tested and brought into practical and beneficial use by 20 years of litigation and construction by the highest court, why should we Imperil Its usefulness by experiments? The outcry sought to be raised in some quarters, follow ed by proposals of amendments pre pared without a real understanding of the law or the court’s decision, may serve the purpose of promoting un reasonable and unreasoning discon tent, but certainly ought not to be con sidered seriously. When an amendment is proposed, let the proponent state the defect in the statute the amendment is to rem edy, and how it will effect it. Federal Incorporation. If the avowed purpose is to make It impossible to use reason In the con struction of the statute as the supreme court did, let the mover of the amend ment formulate a case of restraint of interstate trade not condemned under the supreme court’s construction of the statute, w^hich ought to be con demned. Let us avoid general ex pressions. Let us aboid charges of improper motives. Let us come down to concrete cases and facts and make a showing for an amendment that a lawyer and a legislator can under stand and weigh, and not to be content, with mere rhetoric and language use ful only for declamation. In my message of Jan. 7, 1910, I ad vocated the passage of a statute v/hich shall permit the incorporation of companies engaged in interstate commerce by the federal government I believe that a statute might be drawn to furnish the protection which would induce companies engaged chiefly in interstate trade to take on federal incorporation, and that by the supervision which might be maintain ed by an executive bureau of the gov ernment over their transactions it would be possible to prevent future violations of the anti-trust law by those companies on the one hand and to secure to them a freedom frorii con stant fear of prosecution on the other But this statute would in no way be an amendment of the anti-trust law which has now reached a period in its history when it Is really accomplishing the purpose of its framers and is en forcing a reform In the business meth ods of this country which will be, as useful as it is widespread. ATTACKS ScrfOOL PRINCIPAL A severe attack on school principal, Chas. B. Allen, of Sylvania, Ga., is thus told by him. “For more than three years,” he writes, “I suffered In describable torture from rheumatism, liver and stomach trouble and diseased kidneys. All remedies failed till I used Electric Bitters, but four bottles of this wonderful remedy cured me cc»n- plet^y." Such results are cosimon. Thousands bless them for curii^ stom ach trouble, female complaints^ kid ney disorders, biliousness, and for new health and vigor. Try them. Only 50c at W. L. Hand & Co. EXCUSE ME! HERE JOEJTHKETHtS'HOlOTHE HEWSPfiPSRfiND tWE TT* PUT IN ■meiosTCOTUMNi THE SELWYN HOTEL EUROPEAN Only fire-pnxrf hotel In Char lotte; supplied entirely with wa ter frcwQ its own deeji wslL CAFE OPEN AW, WiGHT. Waler analyzed yjly 6, 1911, by Director State Laboratory of Hygiene ana pronouckced para. Put* Wa^r iiom otu: Arbeyidaa .Well. 303 1-2 feet deep, for saia.. &c galloD at Hotel. 10c gallon hi 5-gallon lota. uelivered in Charlotte or a& & R. Btatioa. EDGAR B. MOORE, Proprietor. SFff- LOST-ON^ OF EYEGLaSSE^.*] DrawnBy M.MYER a REWARD OF DOllftRS) VJilLBE PRID FORTH£lR i WITH GOLD R1IA6 RNP CHftlR-RHD- ( LET ME think: HOW MUCH WIILIT WHY-dUSTflVE D0llRPv5 RRP FDFOY CENXa V rrrr nve-FDfTY- HOW DO flGUaCTHRT QUTf f—^ VELL'ltb 40 CENTS TORmE EXCUSE HO. nND fWE-D0URR3 REWftRD* ’ FOR xVie-CRUSE THE GLRSSES TOU DESCRI8ED n- N.& W. Railway Schetlttlc In Klleet Juue 1911. 10.2& am Lv. Charlotte So. Ry, 5.50 pm. 2.0» pm LiV. W^mston N&W 2.05 pm. *.09 L.V. Mart'vilie N&W Ar. 11.40 am. pm. Ar. Koanokn N&W Lv. :).1S am. Addltion«-i, trains leave Winston-Sa lem 2 m. daily. Connects av iioaaoke for th\e East and West. Pullman sleepers. Dinmg cars. If you are considerlns takin's a trip to CaliCornia or the Coast, set our vavlBble Round»Trl9 Fare. The in formation is yours lor the asking, wnh on« of our complete Map« Folders. W. B. BEVIL.U M. r. BRAGG, Gen. Pass. Agt. Truv. Pass. Ast. Roanoke. Va. Printing? Phone 1530 Littleton Female College Fall Term will begin Sept, 20, 1911. For catalogue address LITTLETON COLLEGE, vj Littletoni N. C. 25-20t. LINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA. A delightful place for an autumnal vacation is Linville, which has become a favorlate with residents of the Pied mont country. Linville Is especially attractive to men by reason of the Trout Fishing, and the excellent golf course. A number of interesting golf events are planned for the late season. Fishing in both lake and stream, is good fh September, and does not close until the 20th oi the month. The popular Eseeola Inn is a lead ing feature of Linville, and the fame of its hospitality and its cooks extends over many states. Eseeola Inn will keep open doors until October 10th. Illustrated booklet or rates will be mailed upon application. Motor cars may reach'Linville via Lenoir and Blowing Rook. R. B. tickets should he purchased to Ekigemont EYjr further Informtlon, address, JAMES P. VINjNQ, 16-21% Linviiia, N. C. For Rent 1 lo-room House on N. Tryon St. 1 5-room House on W. 12th St. 1 6-room House, cor. College and Stonewall Sts. 1 5-room House on S. Church St. 1 3-room House on S. College St. C. M? Nelis N«. 33 East 4th St. -T 'Phona Na. 604-J. ^ ^T7T7‘T7 THE Pilgrim Stone Lined Refrigerator! is aa easily cleaned as a ■ China Plate. It Is the; par excellence of modern j nefrl^erators. si 'i- See them at our store.^ N. McCausland & Co. i 221 South Tryon Street Let Us Remount Your Dladmonds In latest style platinum lined Tiffany's Mount ings, gives the stones additional hrllllapcy and does not tom dark xmder stones. All sizes, and reinounted by expert woirkmsA, Garabaldi, Bruns & Dixon in CSiBKCS l38C5sSC5e!Ht5g|^^ CSIBMBSIS Taylor Nursery Bed This arrangement is the most com plete and convenient ever devised for the mother nursing a young baby, and it is comfortable for the child. You can hear every move of the baby and not suffer the inconvenience of getting out of bed. the Taylpr Nursery Bed in any shape you want to meet your own convenience and the baby is snug and comfortable. Write us for a descriptive catalog'*. ^ Lubin Furniture Company EVERYTHING IN FU«WTU«E JJ i®SS3S^388808B80
The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 19, 1911, edition 1
7
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75