Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/233

 ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARD TRUSTS 2ig

William R. Merriam, formerly governor of Minnesota, and until recently United States census director, voiced this idea in an address before the St. Paul Credit Men's Association, April 16 last, when, discussing the decision, he said :

While the right of private ownership is bestowed upon every citizen of this country under the constitution, no man and no corporation shall be per- mitted to use that ownership to the extent of injuring his neighbor or mena- cing the public good. If I am right in this conclusion, no corporation doing business in the states can destroy its rivals by a disastrous cut in prices, or

raise prices of products to the point of oppression The conclusion is

irresistible that in the central government rests the power to determine that the individual or the corporation doing business that is interstate in its char- acter cannot hold, maintain, or operate any property that results in injury to the public.

These sanguine views may be correct. However, it is well to consider whether or not it would be possible so to frame our legislation as to secure the benefits of combination and remove the sources, external to the combination itself, from which many evils flow.

It was stated above that the three anti-trust acts enumerated constituted the sum of the federal enactments upon this subject. This statement, however, is not technically correct, for during the last session of Congress two acts were passed, the ultimate effect of which cannot as yet be foretold, namely, the Elkins anti-rebate law and an act establishing a Department of Com- merce and Labor, with a subdepartment known as the Bureau of Corporations.

The Elkins law aims at strengthening the Interstate Com- merce Act, and provides that the taker of rebates, as well as the giver, shall be criminally liable. It seems that a rigid enforce- ment of the law would make discriminations practically impos- sible, since under this law discrimination does not need to be shown, but merely a departure from published rates ; and the failure to publish rates is itself punishable. Again, this law abolishes imprisonment for violation of the act, and substitutes therefor a fine upon the corporation of from $1,000 to $20,000. This makes punishment more certain, for it is said that under the old law evidence that would lead to the imprisonment of