Page:Walter Renton Ingalls - Current Economic Affairs (1924).pdf/144

130 This began with the Interstate Commerce Act, which was followed by the Sherman Law, and that in turn by other statutes, such as the Clayton Act and the Trade Commission Act. There developed in such ways a series of economic restrictions, which soon were extended in many directions and generally with but little thought respecting their ultimate consequences.

In other papers and addresses I have urged repeatedly the removal of economic restrictions as an advisable means for the promotion of American welfare. Just what do I mean by this? What are the economic restrictions that I have in mind? It is useful to answer those questions and offer explanations respecting them. But before proceeding to do that let us have a clear understanding of theory.

In urging the removal of economic restrictions let it not be imagined that I am recommending a reversion to the doctrine of laissez faire, which meant “let things take their own course,” the abolition of everything in the way of restraint or regulation, everything in the way of concert and combination in industry. As a scientific doctrine laissez faire fell to the ground, but that did not by any means set up the opposite principle of state regulation, the doctrine of paternal government. “For my part,” said Cairnes, “I accept neither one doctrine nor the other; and, as a practical rule, I hold laissez faire to be incomparably the safer guide. Only let us remember that it is a practical rule, and not a doctrine of science; a rule in the main sound, but like most other sound practical rules, liable to numerous exceptions; above all, a rule which must never, for a moment, be allowed to stand in the way of the candid consideration of any promising proposal of social or