Jasper County Democrat, Volume 15, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 October 1912 — WICKERSHAM IN ERROR [ARTICLE]

WICKERSHAM IN ERROR

INADEQUATE DEFENSE OF TAFT’B TRUST POLICY. Decision in Northern Securities Case Affected Only Forms, Not Substance, of Control. Attorney-General Wickersham is out with a defense of the Taft policy of dealing with the trust question. He recites what has been done by the present administration in the way of prosecuting offending corporations under the Sherman anti trust law, pointing to the court decisions secured in favor of the government, as if that were all that need be said on the subject. Mr. Wickersham cites the decision of the United States Supreme court in the case of the Northern Securities company. The holding corporation that was formed for the purpose of taking over the ownership of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads, built as competitors, was not allowed by the courts to go ahead with its program. However, competition between the two companies was not thereby restored. The control of the two properties is still substantially the same as it would have been under ownership vested jo the Northern Securities company. The two railroad systems are operated in harmony. In commenting further on the situation Mr. Wickersham naively remarks; “It is true that the stocks of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroad companies sold in the market after the dissolution at higher prices than before, but the peril that was averted was the effect of the power of a few men over the transportation facilities of the country. The decision also established as a legal proposition that it was a violation of the Sherman law or of any other federal statute for the same individuals to be owners In like proportions of the stock of two cbmpeting companies.”

Only the forms of control—not the substance —-were affected by the decision in the Northern Securities litigation. As is inevitable in the case of public utility concerns, the railroads are coming into more harmonious relation with one another every year. Rate wars are scarely mentioned any more. While the railroads thus act in harmony public control over them is far less effective than it would be made if their business were frankly recognized by the government as a natural monopoly. Mr. Wickersham fails utterly to draw a distinction between public utility concerns like railroads and other business undertakings that are supposed to be conducted on a competitive basis. If congress were to legislate anew on the subject today it is impossible to believe that it would fail to draw this distinction.

The error made by Mr. Wickersham is not in defending the litigation carried on by his department, but in assuming that more litigation of the same kind offers a solution of the trust question. It was well enough in the past to conduct prosecutions, in order to discover jvliat useful qualities this procedure might develop. But in the light of experience thus gained it is folly to maintain that the Sherman anti trust law is all right as it stands and does not require modification.