« AnteriorContinuar »
The actual forms taken under enforced dissolutions, guided by the Lower Courts, in these cases, are stated in the appendix outline stories* of the Oil and the Tobacco Trusts.
The same interpretations of the law are being made and the same general forms of relief are being proposed in the other great Trust cases now before the Federal Courts, such as those against the Steel, the Harvester, and the Corn Products combinations. In the District Court decree of November 13, 1916, against the Corn Products Refining Company, the Federal Trade Commission is delegated, as master in chancery, to consider the plan proposed by the company for its own dissolution, to hear all the parties and “report to the court a plan which will effectually dissolve the combination and restore a condition in harmony with the law.”
Only eleven anti-trust cases have been filed in the Federal Courts since the Clayton and the Federal Trade Commission acts were passed in 1914, and none of these has yet been decided by the Supreme Court. There are thus no definitive court interpretations of the modifications of the Sherman Act embodied in this 1914 legislation. Only one of these eleven recent cases filed obviously turns upon the new laws. This is the United Shoe Machinery Company case filed in a Missouri District Court in October, 1915, in which this corporation is charged with violation of the Clayton Act through the tying clauses in its series of leases.
*See Appendix D-1 and 3.
FORMULATION OF SUGGESTED METHODS FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE TRUST PROBLEM
BY WILLIAM WIRT HOWE
Permanent Chairman of the Chicago Conference on Trusts
In what are called courts of conciliation, in some jurisdictions, the constant aim of the presiding magistrate is to note those admissions and concessions of the contending parties themselves which may be found even in apparently hopeless disputes, and to make those admissions and concessions a basis for a judgment substantially just.
Now, following this sensible idea, where do we stand after four days of discussion, always interesting, often profoundly scientific, and sometimes passing into the brilliant sphere of oratory? It seems to me-simply as an individual, of course —that almost every paper or address we have heard has made some admissions or concessions which may form a basis for some conclusions, and if you will allow me I will formulate some of them only, as follows:
1. Combinations and conspiracies in the form of Trusts or otherwise in restraint of trade or manufacture, which by the consensus of judicial opinion are unlawful, should so be declared by legislation, with suitable sanctions, and, if possible, by a statute uniform in all jurisdictions, and also uniform as to all persons, and such a statute should be thor
*Their statement made in 1900 at the conference called by the National Civic Federation is of value as showing that at that date the crystallized opinion of sensible men with no parties or special interests to serve was far in advance of legislation, and was sufficient, if prompt action could have been taken in accordance therewith.