Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/39

 20

The Green Bag

construed opposes a nation-wide prin ciple of economic development," and that if business is to be adjusted to an artificial legislative program. Such a process should not be hurried, and "the change should be effected through the prudent co-operation of the Government, rather than at the point of court de crees." John H. Hanan, president of the National Boot and Shoe Manufac turers' Association, says that "it is just as impossible to resolve the present business and economic conditions into the independent entities which existed one hundred years ago as it is to resolve our present civilization into the bar barous elements of the barbarous past." • While he declares that neither the Sherman law nor its interpretation attains perfection, he does not suggest any specific remedy apart from a more liberal interpretation of the law. Secretary Nagel, however, proposes a more definite remedy, in the form of a supplemental statute for federal incor poration, showing "under what condi tions and for what stated purposes a commercial company may organize for interstate and foreign business. Such a measure (particularly if it provides machinery to determine how and when existing companies may avail of it) would, in my judgment, eliminate much of the confusion which now exists with respect to our commercial combina tions." Levy Mayer, general counsel for the Illinois Manufacturers' Associa tion, who also favors voluntary federal incorporation, is more specific in his suggestions. He would remove every federal corporation from subjection to the anti-trust law, but would subject it to visitation and examination as under the national bank act, and would re quire it to pay into the United States Treasury one fourth of its net profits, as the price of its immunity from the

harrassing provisions of the Sherman law. If not one article of the series to which we have just referred is of great intrinsic value, as regards its recommendations of specific remedies, nevertheless the papers collectively considered give weighty embodiment to a shrewd judg ment which deserves the most respect ful attention. That judgment is, so far as a composite can be made of divergent opinions, that the Sherman act, as con strued by the Administration (and as construed by the Supreme Court if the Administration is correct in its views, which we greatly doubt), is a mischiev ous interference with necessary condi tions of economic development. The judgment is that the law must be liber alized, whether by judicial construction, by amendment, or by repeal, and that in the event of the liberalized law failing to show plainly the rights of organized business and to guide great corporations in their conduct, they must be assisted to know exactly where they stand by some efficient method of administrative supervision. The method may or may not be that of federal incorporation. An interesting contribution to this discussion has been made by Frank D. Pavey of New York City. He would amend the Sherman act to provide that : "("') All organizations, associations, combi nations, and agreements, the purpose and effect of which are to increase the wages and improve the terms and conditions of employment of labor, are lawful unless they violate rights of life, liberty, or property. "(b) All organizations, associations, combi nations, and agreements, the purpose and effect of which are to regulate competition, improve the conditions of business, and increase the pro fits of capital, are lawful unless they injure trade or commerce, create a monopoly, or violate rights of liberty or property. "(r) Violations of the law on the subject shall be punished by penalties imposed upon the per sons responsible for the violations of the law,