Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/790

 THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW raised unsuccessfully in a number of cases, where there were no such cases, is not quite clear to me. Let us sincerely hope that the conclusions of the Commissioner of Corporation reached as a result of the multitudinous and con tinuous investigations in which his bureau is or has been engaged, are not character ized by the same painful inadvertence as appears in this vigorous effort to promote the passage of legislation that would vest in his bureau this tremendous power. If unhappily, they should be so characterized, it may be doubted whether they are not wholly without value for any practical purpose. I have felt bound to call attention to these unfortunate statements for the reason that this memorandum, I imagine, is to be circulated throughout the country for the purpose of demonstrating the propriety as well as the validity of the proposed amendments to the Sherman anti-trust law. When it becomes necessary to sustain a piece of proposed legislation by that method of handling authorities, it does not com mend itself to my judgment. The distinguished publicists who are altruistically urging this amendment seem to have an abiding impression that it is practically impossible to carry on business on a scale adequate to existing exigencies without making and carrying out agree ments that are illegal. If they are correct, the law is being violated every' day and hundreds of times every year. They think that business men are very much dii'.arbed by the fear that they are facing a prison cell for doing business under modern methods. I do not think that this apprehension has any reasonable foundation. Senator Lodge in his speech at the Republican Convention said, "The President has enforced the laws as he found them on the statute book." The platform says, "First and foremost a brave and impartial enforcement of the law, the prosecution of illegal trusts and monopolies, etc."

609

I think the results indicate that this enforcement has been more a matter of proclamation than performance. Here is the record for eighteen years: SUMMARY OF CASES UNDER ANTI-TRUST LAWS. President Harrison's Administration, 18891893. 4 bills in equity: 3 injunctions granted. i dismissed. 3 indictments: i quashed. i demurrer sustained. i discontinued. President Cleveland's Second Administration, 1893-1897. 4 bills in equity: 3 injunctions granted, i dismissed. 2 informations (fdr contempt in violating injunctions) : i quashed, i conviction. 2 indictments: i quashed, i dismissed. President McKinley's Administration, 18971901 (September 14). 3 bills in equity: •2 injunctions granted. 1 dismissed. President Roosevelt's Administration, Sep tember 14, 1901, to June, 1908. Summary of Civil Cases — 1 8 bills in equity: 8 injunctions granted. 10 pending, i forfeiture proceeding: Pending. Summary of Criminal Cases — 23 indictments: 7 convictions, i plea in bar sustained, i demurrer sustained. 14 pending. 2 proceedings for contempt in refusing to testify before Grand] Jury: Convictions. Total fines imposed, $96,000.