University of South Carolina Libraries
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TU ChampiOiis the Anti? trust Statuta WK REMEDIES SU66ESTE0. Net Repeal er Amendment, but Sup? plemente! Legialetion Nseded?The T<*eooo Truet Dveieion en Effective Or? Federal Incorporation Reoom - saonded end a Federal Corporation Commission Proposed The Teat of ?R oasona b I o noes." To the Senate and Honao of Repre? sentatives: Thai mewiag* to the nrat of several which I ahali wend to congress during the Interval between the opening of its regular evasion and tts adjourn |b aaset for the t brist mas holidays. The amount of tnformatlou to be cum um sjicatsd as to the operations of the government, the number of Important ?abject* calllui for comment by the , executive sud the transmission to con i grese of exhaustive reports of apeciul . Commission* make It Impossible to In berede In one meeaege of a ressonable length a discussion of the topics that ought to be brought to the att*ntlou es* the national legislature at its first regular session. The Anti-trust Law?The Supremo Court Decision*. es> In Msy last the supreme court band ed down derision* In the suite in equi? ty brought by the United States to en Joan the further maintenance of the Standard Oil trust snd of the Amerl Tobacco trust snd to secure tbelr j dvtlou. The decisions sre epoch making and serve to advise the busl ^teas world authoritatively of the ^^eope and operation of the anti-trust Act of I960. Tbe decision* do not de pert tn any substantial way from the previous decisions of the court tn con? struing snd applying this Important statute, but they clarify those dec! st?hn by further defining the already ^admitted eiceptlons to tbe literal con *a^lr\ictloo of the act. Ry tbe decree* thee; furnish a oseful precedent ss to the proper method of deal trig with the I and property of illegal trust* decisions suggest the need -nnd ore of sddltlonsl or supplemental ?dstton to tnske It sealer for the tire business community to square b the rule of action and legality thaw '.nail? established snd to pre? serve the benefit, freedom and spur of reasonable competition without loss of reel enVtencv or progress Ms Cssngo tn the Rule of Deoioion. Merely In Ita Form of Expression. The statute In Ita tint section de ^yare* to be Illegal "every contract, combination In tbe form of trust or SgherMlae or ofixplrscy In restrai n of trace or cunmerce among the egg? oral states or with foreign nit. ti ' and in the second declares guilty of a nor every person who shall dlxe or attempt to monopoll M combine or conspire with any other person to monopolise any part of fbe trade or commerce of the several states er with foreign nations." Id tu*o early cases, where the statute was liivoked to enjoin a transporta? tion nite sgrs*ement l>etween Inter ^sjafe railroad companies. It was held xnat It was no defense to show that the agreement as to rates complained ef wss reasonable at common law. be? cause It was aahi that the statute was directed again.*', all contra.ts and com binstIons in restraint of trade, whether reasonable at common law or not. It Wae plain from he record, however, ?gnat the contracts complained of In those case* would not have been deem? ed reasonable at common law. hi sub Sequent cases the court said that the etatute should be given a reasonab'e construction and refused to Include trlthln Ita Inhibition certain contrac? tual restraints of trade which It de momlnaed as Incidental or as Indirect These cases of rest rant of trade that the court escopted from the operation of the Statuts were Instances which at common law would have been call? ed reasonable In the Standard Oil geehaS tohsceo cases, therefore, the court ^taerely sdopted the tests of the com? mon Is** snd In defining exceptions to the literal applies'Ion of the statute only aubstitnted for the teet of being Incidental or Indirect that of bei 114 reasonsbie. and this without varying In tbe slightest the sctnsl scope nud tSert of the statute. In other WfJfds II the rases ander the statute nhl?-h have now been decided would have been doctded the same way If the court had originally accepted tn Ita construction tbe rule at common law It ha* been said that the sssjssj hm in troduclng Into tbe ronatructloti of the Statute common law distinctions' has ?SjCUlated It This u ohvtously un ie By Its judgment every CfSJtf s> t end combination In restraint of Inter state trade made with rpurpose or necessary effect of isnlluHlSj prices Tay stifling competition or <?f eetahttak lag in whole or In part a seono|>olv of such trade ie condemned by H I eje. The mowt erfi-mo sjfH( rSSSOl TWatnnce a cs?e ttnt ought to hi faManed ander the statute which I < n brought within Ita terms aa thus con ?trued The suggestion 'a nl?.<> in ' I Ibc fjOpreee- CO Ifl I I** decision |fl tlM las*, two rases baa commit d In the ^Hort the nndeflued and nnlli ? dla ^Teflon la jettlSI I rest?11 "( t" The Swtft 1 hp ' - ? dam 1 ?* was p tt the statuta. This to wholly untrue. 4 reasonable restraint of trade at coin moo law Is well understood and la rlearly defined. It does not rest In the discretion of the court. It must be limited to accompli* h the purpose of a lawful main contract to which In order that It shall be enforcenble st sll It must be Incidental. If It exceed the needs of that contract It Is void. The test of reasonableness was never applied by the court at comman law to contracts or combinations or con spiracles in restraint of trade whose purpose wss or whose necessary efiect would be to stifle competition, to con trol prices or establish monopolies The courts never assumed power to say that such contracts or comhlua tlons or conspiracies might be lawful if the parties to them were only mod? erate in the use of the power thus se cured and did not exact from the pub? lic too great and exorbitant prices. It la true that many theorists aud others engaged In business violating the stat? ute hare hoped that some such Hue could be drawn by courts, but no court of authority has ever attempted It Certainly there Is nothing In the deci? sions of the latest two cases froin which such a dangerous theory of Ju? dicial discretion In enforcing this stat? ute can derive the slightest sanction Faroe and Effectiveness of Statute a Matter of Growth. We have been twenty-one years mak? ing this statute effective for the pur? poses for which it was enacted. The Knlgbt case was discouraging und seemed to remit to the states the whole tTsllable power to attack and suppress the evils of the trusts. Slowly, howev? er, the error of that Judgment was cor? rected, aud only In the last three or four years has the heavy hand of the law been laid upon the great Illegal co m hi nations that have exercised such an absolute dominion over many of our industries. Criminal prosecutions have been brought, and a number are pend? ing, but Juries have felt averse to con? victing for Jail sentences aud Judges 'have been taost relnctaut to Impose such sentences on men of respectable standing In society whose offense has been regarded as merely statutory Still, as the offense becomes better uu derstood and the committing of it pur tukes mote of studied and deliberate d"ii nice of the law we can be confi? dent that Juile? will convict individu als and that Jail sentences will be im posed The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution. Id the Staudard Oll Jfjaf the supreme and circuit courts found the eombnia tlon to be n monopoly of the interstate business of refining, transporting and marketing petroleum und its products, effected and maintained through thir? ty-seven different corporations, the stock of which was held by a New Jer? sey company. It In effect commanded the dissolution of this combination, di? rected the transfer and pro rata distri? bution by the New Jersey company of the atck held by It In the thirty-seven corporation* to and among its stock? holders, and the corporations and indi? vidual defendants were enjoined from consf I ring or combining to restore such monopoly, and all agreements be tNseen the subsidiary corporations teud ing to produce or bring about further violations of the act were euJoined. lu the tobacco case the court found that the individual defendants, twen? ty-nine In uu ruber, had l>eeu engaged In a successful effort to acquire com? plete dominion over the manufacture, sale and distribution of tobacco In this country and abroad and that this hud beeu done by combinations made with a puris>se and effect to stifle competi? tion, control prices and establish a monopoly, not only in the manufacture of tobacco, but also of tin foil und lic? orice used in Its manufacture and of its products of cigars, cigarettes and snuffs. The tobacco suit presented " far more complicated and difficult case than the Standard OH suit for a decree which would effectuate the will of the court and end the vlolntlon of the stat? ute. There was here no single hold lug company, as In the case of the Standard nil trust. The main company was the American Tobacco company, a manufacturing, selling and holding company. The plan adopted to de? stroy the combination and restore com? petition Involved the redlvlslon of the capital and plants of the whole trust between some of the companies con? st It ut.'ng the trust and new com pa nie? organized for the purposes of the de cree aud made parties to it and num? bering, new and old. fourteen. Situation After Readjustment. The American Tobacco company (old), readjusted capital $02.000.000; the Liggett dc deyers Tobacco company (new), capital $(17.000.000; the P. Lorll Inrd company <now>, capital $47.000, 000. and the It. J. Reynolds Tobacco company (old), capital I7..VJ5.000. are chietly snjMaTad In tho manufacture and sale of chewing and smoking to? bacco and cigars. The former one tin foil ?? .tnpanv Is divided into two. one of .?vj-.ooo capital and the other of $400.000 The one snuff company Is divided into three companies, one with a capital of lUVOOOgOOQi another with a Capital of 8e\00O.O00 and a third with It capital of J s.onn.oon The licorice Companies are two. one with a capital of KkTSfl 800 and another w ith a enpi till of 12/IOtXOOll There |f also the Hrifish Amactcan Tobacco company, a Hrltlsh corporation, doing business abroad with a capital of $'Jt; nm.om. the PortO Rtcafl Tobacco company, with a capital of $1 .Him.mio. and the corporation of I'nited fjlgar stores with i capital of ${>.ooo.ooo (Jadef this arrangement each of thf different kinds of DU IttON will 1 dls trlbufcd between | \ .> .,r more i mpa nie* with a division of the prominent brands In the same tobacco products, so h>*> to make competition not only possible, but nee. Thus the smoking tobacco busli of the conn trv Ii divided s ? that the present In tlally destroyed by Ore Monday night Tho oll tri II I Itself w ^ not ??pendent companies hare 21.89 per cent, while the American Tobacco com? pany will have 83.08 per cent, tbe Lig? gett A Meyer* 20.05 per cent, tbe Lorll lard company 2282 per cent and the Reynolds company 2.66 per cent. The stock of the other thirteen companies, both preferred and common, has been taken from the defeudant American Tobacco company and haa been dis? tributed among Its stockholders. All covenants restricting competition have been declared null and further per? formance of them has been enjoined. The preferred stock of the different companies has now been given voting power which was denied it under tbe old organization. The ratio of the pre? ferred stock to the common was as 78 to 40. This constitutes a very decided change |n the character of the owner? ship and control of each company. In tbe original suit there were twen? ty-nine defendants, who were charged with being the conspirators through whom the illegal combination acquired and exercised its unlawful dominion. Under the decree these defendants will hold amounts of stock in the various distributee companies ranging from 41 per cent as a maximum to 28?4 per cent as a minimum, except In the case of one small company, the Porto Klean Tobacco coenpany. 1" which they will hold 4."? per cent The twenty-nine In? dividual defendants are enjoined for three years from buying any stock ex? cept from each other, and the group Is thus prevented from extending its con? trol during that period. All parties to the suit and the new companies who are mode parties are enjoined perpet? ually from In any way effecting any combination between any of the com? panies In violation of the statute by way of resumption of the old trust. Each of the fourteen companies Is en? joined from acquiring stock In any ot the others. All these companies are enjoined from having common direc? tors or officers, or common buying or selling agents, or common offices, or lending money to each other. Sixr of Now Companies. Objection was made by certain in? dependent tobacco companies that this settlement wns uu.lust hocgnse It left companies with very large capitnl in uctlve business and that the settle? ment that would be effective to put all on gg equality would be | division of the capital and plant of the trust Into small fractions in amount more near? ly equal to that of each of the Inde? pendent companies. This contention results from a misunderstanding of the atit!-trust law and its purpose. It is not intended thereby to prevent the accumulation of large capital in busi? ness enterprises in which such a cora blnntlou can secure reduced cost of production, sale and distribution. It Is directed against auch nn aggrega? tion of capital only when Its purpose Is that of stifling competition, enhanc? ing or controlling prices itnd establish I ing a monopoly. If we shall have by the decree defeated these purposes and restored competition between the large units into which the capital and plant have been divided we shall have accomplished the useful purpose of the statute. Confiscation Not the Purpose of the-. Statute. It is not the purpose of the statute to Confiscate the property and capital of the offending trusts. Methods of punishment bv fine or imprisonment of the individual offenders, by line of the corporation or by forfeiture of Its goods In tie importation are provided, but the proceeding in equity Is a spe? cific remedy to stop the operation of the trust by Injunction and prevent tho future use of the plant and capital in violation of the statute. Effectiveness of Decree. I venture to say that not In the his? tory of Amerlcau law has a decree more effective for such I purpose been entered by a court than that against the tobacco trust. As Circuit Judge Noyes said In his Judgment approving the decree: "Thg extent to which it has been necessary to tear apart this Combina? tion and force it Into new forms with the attendant burdens ought to demon? strate that the federal anti-trust statute is a drastic statute which accomplishes effective results, which so long us it stands on the statute books must be obeyed and which cannot be disobey? ed without Incurring farreaching pen alties. And. on the other hand, the successful reconstruction of this or? ganization should teach that the effect of enforcing this statute Is not to de? stroy, but to reconstruct: not to de? molish, but to recrente In accordance with the conditions which the congress has declared shall exist among the people of the United States." Common Stook Ownership. It has been assumed that the pres? ent pro rata and common ownership in all those companies by former stock? holders of the trust would insure a continuance of the same old single con? trol of ail the companies, into which the trust hps by decree been disinte? grated. This is erroneous and is based upon the assumed inellieaey nnd InnoC uousness of Judicial injunctions The companies are enjoined from cooper;! tion or combination; they have differ ent managers, directors, purchasing und sides agenta If oil or many of the numerous stockholders, reaching Into the thousands, attempt to secure concerted action of the companies, with a view to the control of the market their number Is so large that such an attempt could not well be concealed, and It! prime movers ond all Its portie Iponts would he at once subject to con? tempt proceedlngi and Imprisonment of a aummarj character The immedi nte result of tbe present altuatlon wllh necessarily i >? activity by oil the coin panics tinder different roanngera, and then competition must follow of there will be activity by one company and stognoilon by another. Only a stunt time will Inevitably lend to a change ! dumaged hut 1,000 tone of cotton Isjcd, 2,000 tons meal and 100 bales to ownership of the stock, as all op? portunity for continued co-operation must disappear. Those critics who speak of this disintegration in the trust as a mere change of garments have not given consideration to the inevitable working of the decree and understand Uttle the personal danger of attempt? ing to evade or set at naught the sol? emn Injunction of a court whose object is made plain by the decree and whose Inhibitions are set forth with a detail and comprehensiveness unexampled in the history of equity Jurisprudence. Voluntary Reorganizations of Other Trusts at Hand. The effect of these two decisions has led to decrees dissolving the combina? tion of manufacturers of electric lamps*, a southern wholesale grocers* association, an interlocutory decree against the powder trust, with direc? tions by the circuit court compelUng dissolution, and other combinations of a similar history are now negotiating with the department of Justice looking to a disintegration by decree and re? organization in accordance with law. It seems possible to bring about these reorganizations without general busi? ness disturbance. Movement For Repeal of the Anti? trust Law. But now that the anti-trust act is seen to be effective for the accomplish? ment of the purpose of ita enactment we ure met by a cry from many differ? ent quarters for its repeal. It is said to be obstructive of business progress, to be an attempt to restore old fash? ioned methods of destructive competi? tion between small units and to make Impossible those useful combinations of capital and the reduction of the cost of production thnt are essential to con? tinued prosperity and normal growth. In the recent decisions the supreme I court makes clear that there Is noth lug In the statute which condemns combinations of capital or mere big? ness of plant organized to secure econ? omy in production and a reduction of Its cost. It is only when the purpose or necessary elTect of the organization and maintenance of the combination or the aggregation of Immense size are the stifling of competition, actual and potential, and the enhancing of prices and establishing n monopoly that the statute Is violated. Mere size is no sin against the law. The merging of two or more business plants necessari? ly eliminates competition between the units thus combined, but this elimina? tion is in contravention of the statute only when the combination is made for purpose of ending this particular com? petition in order to secure control of and enhance prices and create a nio nopoly. Lack of Definiteness In the Statute. The complaint is made of the stat ute that it Is not sufficiently definite In its description of that which is for? bidden to enable business men to avoid its violation. The suggestion Is that we may have a combination of two corporations which may run on for yeurs and that subsequently the at? torney general may conclude that it was a violation of the statute and that which was supposed by the combiners to be Innocent then turns out to be 0 combination in violation of the statute The answer to this hypothetical case is that who*i men attempt to amass such stupendous capital as will enable them to suppress competition, control prices and establish a monopoly they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such a thing without having it clearly In mind. If what they do is merely for the purpose of reducing the cowt of production, without the thought of suppressing competition by use of the bigness of the plant they are creating, theu they cannot be convicted at the time the union is made, nor can they be convicted later unless It happen that later on they conclude to sup? press competition and take the usual methods foi t'oiug so and thus estab? lish for themselves a monopoly. They can in such a case hardly complain if the motive which subsequently Is dis? closed is attributed by the court to the original combination. New Remedies Suggested. Much is said of the repeal of this statute and of constructive legislation intended to accomplish the purpose and blaze a clear patii for honest mer? chants and business men to follow. It may be that such a plan will be evolved, but I submit that the discus? sions which have been brought out in recent days by the fear of the con tinued execution of the anti-trust law have produced nothing but glittering generalities and have offered no line of distinction or rule of action as defi? nite and as clear as thut which the su? preme court itself lays down In en? forcing the statute. Supplemental Legislation Needed, Not Repeal or Amendment. I see tio objection, and Indeed I can see decided advantages, in the enact? ment of a law which shall describe and denounce methods of competition which are unfair and are badges of the unlawful purpose denounced In the anti trust law. The attempt and pur? pose to suppress a competitor by un? derselling him ot a price so unprofita? ble as to drive him out of business or tho making of exclusive contracts with customers under which they are re? quired to give up association with oth? er manufacturers and numerous kin? dred methods for stltlim: tompetltton and affecting monopoly should be de? scribed with sufficient accuracy in a criminal statute on the one hand to enable the government to thorten its task by prosecuting tingle i ilsdemean <>rs Instead of an entire conspiracy and on the other band to serve the purpose of pointing out more In detail to th<> business community what must be avoided. Fede-?l Incorporation Recommended. In a special message to con gros i on Jan. 7. 1010 ? ventured to point out ( f linters were burned with the of> i'm e und w an ' ouse building. tue disturbance to business that would probably attend the dissolution of these offending trusts. I sold: "But such an Investigation and pos? sible prosecution of corporations whose prosperity or destruction affects the comfort not only of stockholders, but of millions of wage earners, employees and associated trades Ulf U. must neces? sarily tend to disturb the confidence ' of the business community, to dry up the now flowing sonrces of capital from lbs places of hoarding and pro? duce a halt In our present prosperity that will cause suffering and strained circumstances among the innocent many for the faults of the guilty few. The question which I wish in this message to bring clearly to the con? sideration and discussion of congress Is whether, in order to avoid such a possible business danger, something cannot be done by which these busi? ness combinations may. be offered a means, without great financial dis? turbance, of changing the character, organization and extent of their busi? ness Into one within the lines of the law under federal control and super? vision, securing compliance with the anti-trust statute. "Generally in the industrial combina? tions called trusts* the principal busi? ness is the sale of goods In many states and in foreign markets?in other words, the interstate and foreign business far exceeds the business done in any one state. This fact will Justify the fed? eral government in granting a federal charter to such a combination to make and sell In interstate and foreign com? merce the products of useful manufac? ture under such limitations as will se? cure a compliance with the anti-trust law. It is possible so to frame a stat? ute that, while it offers protection to a federal company against harmful, vex? atious and unnecessary Invasion by the stntes. It shall subject it to reasona? ble taxation and control by the states with respect to its purely local busi? ness. * * * "Corporations organized under this act should be prohibited from acquir? ing and holding stock in other corpo? rations (except for special reasons, upon approval by the proper federal authority), thus avoiding the creation under national auspices of the holding company with subordinate corporations in different states, which has been such an effective agency In the crea? tion of the great trusts and monopo? lies. "If the prohibition of tue anti-trust act against combinations In restraint of trade is to be effectively enforced it is essential that the national govern? ment shull provide for the creation of national corporations to carry on a le? gitimate business throughout the Unit? ed States. The conflicting la,T-s of the different states of the Union wllu re? spect to foreign corporations make it diflicult, if not impossible, lor one cor poratiou to comply with their require? ments so as to carry on business in r. number of different states." I renew the recommendation of the enactment of a general law providing for the voluntary formation of cor? porations to engage in trade and com merce among the states and with for eign nations Every arglAieut which was then advanced for such a law and every explanation which was at that time offered to possible objections has been confirmed by our experience since the enforcement of the anti-trust stat ute has resulted In the actual dissolu? tion of active commercial organisa? tions. It is even more manifest now thru It was then that the denunciation of conspiracies' in restraint of trade should not and does not mean the de nial of organizations large enough to be intrusted with our interstate and foreign trade. It has been made more clear now than It was then that a purely negative statute like the anti? trust lnw may well be supplemented by specific provisions for the building up and regulation of legitimate na? tional and foreign commerce. Government Administrative Experte Needed to Aid Courts bn Trust Dissolutions. The drafting of the decrees in the dissolution of the present trusts, with a view to their reorganisation Into le? gitimate corporations, has made it es? pecially apparent that the courts are not provided with the administrative machinery to make the necessary in? quiries preparatory to reorganization , or to pursue such inquiries, and they should* be empowered to Invoke the aid of the bureau of corporations In determining the suitable reorganiza? tion of the disintegrated parts. The circuit court and the attorney general were greatly aided In framing the de? cree in the tobacco trust dissolution by an expert from the bureau of corpora? tions. Federal Corporation Commission Pro? posed. 1 do not set forth In detail tl.< terms and sections of a statute which might supply the constructive legislation per? mitting and aiding the formation of combinations of capital into federal corporations. They should be subject to rigid rules as to their organisation and procedura, Including effective pub? licity, and to the closest supervision as to the Issue of stock and bonds by an executive bureau or commission li the 1 department of commerce and labor, to Which In times of doubt they might well submit their proposed plans for 1 future business, it must be distinctly understood that Incorporation under s I federal law could not exempt the v an i pany thui formed and its Incorpor. and managers from prosecution under I the nnti trust law for subsequent II legal conduct, but the publicity of I i procedure and the opportunity for fie ' quent consultation with the bureau or I commissi m In charge of the Incorpora tioti to the lei Itimate purpose of in trat lions would offer it as great se rarity against successful prose utlop^ u .t>r violations of the law aa would1 be* Iractlcal or wise. Such a bureau or commission might well be Invested also with the duty already referred to of aiding courts in the dissolution and recreution of trusts within the law. it should be an executive tribunal of the dignity and power of the comptroller of the cur? rency or the Interstate commerce com? mission, which now exercises supervis? ory power over important classes of corporations under federal regulation. Tbe drafting of such a federal in? corporation law would offer ample op? portunity to prevent many manifest evils in corporate management today. Including Irresponsibility of control in the bands of the few who are not the real owners Incorporation Voluntsry. I recommend that the federal char? ters thus to be granted shall be volun? tary, at least until experience Justifies mandatory provisions. The benefit to be derived from the oi>eratJon of great businesses under the protection of such a charter would attract all who are anxious to keep within the lines of the law. Other large combinations that fall to take advantage of the federal incorporation will not have a right to complain if their failure Is ascribed to unwillingness to submit their transac? tions to the careful official scrutiny, j competent supervision and publicity j attendant upon the enjoyment of auch a charter. I Only Supplemental Legislation Needed. I The opportunity thus suggested for [ federal incorporation, it seems to me, is suitable constructive legislation needed to facilitate the squaring of great industrial enterprises to the rule of action laid down by the anti-trust law. This statute as construed by the supreme court must continue to be the line of distinction for legitimate busi? ness. It must be enforced unless we are to banish individualism from all business and reduce it to one common system of regulation or control of prices like that which now prevails with respect to public utilities and which when applied to all business would be a long step toward state so? cialism. Importance of the Anti-trust Act. The anti-trust act is the expression of the effort of a freedom loving peo? ple to preserve equality of opportunity. It is the result of the confident deter? mination of such a people to maintain their future growth by preserving un? controlled and uurestricted the enter? prise of the individual, his industry, his ingenuity, his intelligence and his Independent courage. For twenty years or more this stat? ute has been upon the statute book. All know its general purpose and ap? proved Many of Its violators were cynical over its assumed Impotence. It Seemed impossible of enforcement. Slowly the mills cf the courts ground, and only gradually did the majesty of the law assert itself. Many of its statesmen-authors died before it be? came a living force, and they and oth? er* saw the evil grow which they had hoped to destroy. Now its efficacy is seen: now Its power is heavy: now its ! object Is near achievement. Now we hear the call for Its repeal on the plea that it Interferes with brrmess nrcs perlty. and we are advised In most geroral terms how by some other stat? ute and In some other way the evil we are just stamping out can be cured If we only abandon this work of twen? ty years and try nuother experiment for another term of year-. It is said that the act has not done good. Can this be said In the face of the effect of the Northern Securities decree? That decree was in no way so drastic or Inhihitive in detail as ei? ther the Standard Oil decree or the tobacco decree. But did it not stop for all time the then powerful move? ment toward the control of all the railroads of the country in a single hand? Such a one man power could not have been a healthful influence in the republic, eveu though exercised under the general supervision of au interstate commission. Do we desire to make such ruthless combinations and monopolies lawful? When all energies are direc ted, not to? ward the reduction of the cost of pro? duction for the public benefit by a healthful cotni etition. but toward new ways and means for making perma? nent in a few hands the absolute con? trol of the conditions and prices pre? vailing in the whole field of industry, then individual enterprise and effort will be paralyzed and the spirit of commercial freedom will be dead. WM. EL TAFT. The White House. Dec. 5, 1911. if you are troubled with chronic constipation, the mild and gen Lie ef? fect of Chamberlain's Tablets makes them especially suited to your case. For sale by all dealers. UGH TNI a j OIL Is ?Ii?' one i it 'airing aclrwiMac dressing which Instantly relievos ai d pci main i.''. \ curte all hurls, ruts, ' u; . '".(ire , h|*raftia and inds ol ever] kind. Tain ; i one hacaaae the air is i ndcd, ami the oil covering acts as artificial skin. The osjeck* i-f. rastest healing oil known? HUNTS LIGHTNING OHj. - cc Ita and 50 cents botfll \ bVRICHA 1>S MEDICINE CO. Shei nso. Tea ' We bj Slteft dug Stars. ?