Grand Rapids Herald-Review Newspaper, December 6, 1911, Page 1

| ) { { | } Vor, XXII. —No 23 PRESIDENT TAFT’S GRAND RapiDs, Irasca County, MINN., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, ANNUAL MESSAGE T0 CONGRESS Champions Anti-Trust Law ot Said Supreme Court Ruling } Clarified Decisions. SUGGESTS MANY NEW REMEDIES Not Repeal of Amendment, but Supplemental Legislation Need- | ed—Tobacco Trust. WANTS CORPORATION COMMISSION Federal Incorporation Recommend-| ed and Says Remedy in Equity | Is Dissolution—Experts Needed to Aid Courts. nee te 8: On 88 enon OM OY GIST OF THE MESSAGE. Opposes repeal or amend- ment of the Sherman anti-trust act Federal law and supple- Urges passage of incorporation menta] legislation that ‘would describe and denounce meth- ods of competition that are un- Proposes creation of execu- tive commission of the dignity ee ee ee and power of the interstate commerce commission to "sup- | ervise corporations chartered ; under Federal law. Praises effectiveness of court’s decree on dissolution of Tebacco trust. en a a ne te ee eee —oe ee a President Taft’s third annual mes- sage to congress, devoted exclusive: ly to the Sherman anti-trust act and | the trust question in general, was | read in congress yesterday. | The president defended the Sher- act as interpreted by the su- the United States, indicated plainly his opposition to this man preme court of the repeal or amendment of ieese a Federal incorporation statute, but suggested that congress law and supplemental legislation that “would describe and denounce meth- ods of competition that are unfair.” To supervise corporations charter- jed under Federal law, President Taft Proposed the creation of an execu- , tive bureau, or commission, with | powers akin to those of the inter- | | State commerce commission. The message follows: To the Senate and House of Repre- maapltat This message is the first of several which I shall send to congress during | the interval between the opening of its regular session and its adjourn- ment for the Christmas holidays. The amount of information te be commu- nicated as to the operations of the | | government, the number of important subjects calling for comment by the! executive and the transmission to con gress of exhaustive reports of special commissions make it impossible to in- clude in one message of a reasonable | length a discussion of the topics that | | ought to be brought to the attention of the national legislature at its first regular session. |The Anti-trust Law—The Supreme Court Decisions. In May last the supreme court hand- ' ed down decisions in the suits in equi- | ty brought by the United States to en- | join the further maintenance of the | Standard Oil trust and of the Ameri- can Tobacco trust and to secure their dissolution. The decisions are epoch | making and serve to advise the busi- ness world authoritatively of the) scope and operation of the anti-trust act of 1890. The decisions do not de- part in any substantial way from the | previous decisions of the court in con- | struing and applying this important | statute, but they clarify those deci- gions by further defining tile already | admitted exceptions to the literal con struction of the act. By the decrees | they furnish a useful precedent as to the proper method of dealing with the | capital end property of illegal trusts. | | These decisions suggest the need and wisdom of additional or supplemental | legislation to make it easier for the entire business community to square with the rule of action and legality thus finally established and to pre serve the benefit. freedom and spur of reasonable competition without loss of real efficiency or progress. No Change In the Rule of Decision, | Merely tn Its Form of Expression. The statute in its first section de- clares to be illegal “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the sev- era] states or with foreign nations” and in the second declares guilty of a (HE NEVER FAILS TO VISIT wae a 11-09, by C. EB. Z er time of the year. the Bank for you can have a b ank save. There is a time coming and sorrow if you have not. Capilal $2 5,000,00 President, F. P. Sheldon. Cashier, C. E. Aiken. in every every year when you will have joy in your life if you have saved, nerman Co.--No, $0 This is the time when the pinch of poverty is felt as at no oth- You shou Id not envy those with money in account yourself if you will only life as this season comes First Dational Ban GRAND RAPIDS. MINN. Letpoleesr $ 5,000,00 OFFICERS Vice-Pres., A. G. Wedge. Jr Ass’t. Cashier, J. G. Peterson DIRECTORS F. P. Sheldon. D. M. Gunn. A G. Wedge. W. C. Gilbert. Cc. E. Aikena John Beckfelt? H. D. Powers. | Misdemeanor “every person who shan monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other | Person to monopolize any part of the | trade or commerce of the several states | or with foreign nations.” | In two early cases, where the statute | was invoked to enjoin a transporta- tion rate agreement between inter- | state: railroad companies, it was held | that it was no defense to show that the agreement as to rates complained | | of was reasonable at common law. be. | cause it was said that the statute was directed against all contracts and com- | binations in restraint of trade. whether | reasonable at common law or not. [t was plain from the record, however. that the contracts complained of in those cases would not have been deem- ed reasonable at common law. Ip sub sequent cases the court said that the statute should be given a reasonable construction and refused to include | Within its inhibition certain contrac- | tual restraints of trade which it de- | Bominated as incidental or as Indirect. These cases of restrant of trade that the court excepted from the operation of the statute were instances which at common law would have been call- ed reasonable. In the Standard Ot) | and tobacco cases, therefore. the court | merely adopted the tests of the com- | mon law and in defining exceptions to | the literal application of the statute | only substituted for the test of being | incidental or indirect that of being reasonable. and this without varying | in the slightest the actual scope and effect of the statute. In other words, all the cases under the statute which | have now been decided would have | been decided the same way if the j court had originally accepted in its construction the rule at common law. It has been said that the court by in | troducing into the construction of the | statute common law distinctions has | ' emasculated it. This is obviously un- true. By its judgment every contract and combination in restraint of inter- state trade made with the purpose or | mecessary effect of controlling prices \ by stiffing competition or of establish- | mg in whole or in part a monopoly of | such trade is condemned by the stat- | ute. The most extreme critics cannot | instance a case that ought to be con- | demned under the statute which is not | brought within its terms as thus con: | strued | The suggestion is also made that the | supreme conrt by its decision In the |Aast two cases has committed to the court the undefined and nnlimited dis- | cretion to determine whether a case of. | restraint of trade te within the term of the statute. This is wholly untrue. | A reasonable restraint of trade at com- ; mon law is well understood and is | clearly defined. It does not rest in the discretion of the court. [t must be limited to accomplish the purpose of a lawful main contract to which in order that it shall be enforceable at all 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-| spiracies in restraint of trade whose purpose was or whose necessary effect would be to stifle competition, to con trol prices or establish monopolies. The courts never assumed power to gay that such contracts or combina- | tions 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- j He too great and exorbitant prices. It | is true that many theorists and others | engaged in business violating the stat- ! ute have hoped that some such line | 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 from which such a dangerous theory of ju dicial discretion in enforcing this stat- ute can derive the slightest sanction | Force 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 | Knight case was discouraging and | | | | j | seemed to remit to the states the whole available power to attack and suppress the evils of the trusts. Slowly, howev er, the error of that judgment was cor- rected, and only in the last three or four years has the heavy hand of the | law been laid upon the great illegal | combinations 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 and judges | have been most reluctant to impose such sentences on men of respectable standing in society whose offense has beep regarded as merely statutory Still, as the offense becomes better un- derstood and the committing of it par takes more of studied and deliberate | defiance of the law we can be confi- dent that juries will convict individu- als and that jail sentences will be im- posed The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution. In the Standard Oil case the supreme and circuit courts found the combina tion to be a monopoly of the interstate business of refining, transporting and marketing petroleum and 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 (Continued on page six) ‘JUDGE SCORED THE BROTHERS | Judge Walter Bordwell. | followed by JAMES B, M’NAMARA GETS LIFE: BROTHER FIFTEEN YEARS Confessed Dynamiters Hear Sen- tence Pronounced Yesterday By | Judge Walter Bordwell. H Said Both Deserved Extreme Pen- alty of the Law—No Reason | for Leniency. NOTHING IN TWO MEN'S FAVOR But Heeds Recommendations for Clemency Made in Their Behalf By Prosecuting Attorney Fredericks. Los Angeles, Dec. 6.—James B. Mc- Namara, confessed murderer, was | sentenced to life imprisonment by His brother, John J. McNamara, sec- retary of the International Association ot Bridge and Structural Iron Work- ers, who confessed to the dynamiting | of the Llewellyn iron works, was sen- tenced to fifteen years in the peniten- | tiary. Twenty-one persons lost their lives | in the Times disaster. No one was killed in the Llewellyn iron works af- fair. Imprisonment will be in San Quen-! tin penitentiary. Sentence was pronounced in a court , room full of cheery faced spectators, whose chatter filled the place until the prisoners entered and trailed them across the Bridge of Sighs when they | beet. ‘The two brothers, side by side, re- ceived what the iaw and the court de- termined to be the just return for what they confessed to have done. Fredericks Urges Clemency. The extreme penalty for James B. | ment reciting the indictment for mu Au Grand Uapids Herald-Ueview. = (QOIl Two Dollars a Year “The | this. “A man who will place sixteam sticks of dynamite in a place whem you, as a printer, knew gas was burn ing in many places and knew mary were toiling, must have had no reganf® for life; nist have been a murdesur at heart and undeserving of clemence” For reasons others than such a plem of non-intent, Judge Bordwell deciarmé circumstances are again WALTER BORDWELL. he would impose the peneity of im prisonmen: for life. John J. McNamara came next. Tie ks indictment was age. The prisones ing to say. Fredericks, how the other case ted considera Llewellyn iron we read to him by the j said he ‘udge Who Sentenced McNamara Brothers. | t the defendamg | John J. , be given a “lew j years of freedor the end of hi | fe.” | Judge Lordwell deciared that strict jures aga Fame B. McNamara would alsu apply to him | Clemency. he said, was not becausm lof merit ns to intent. He then im | posed sentence for fifteen years | San Quentin penitentiary, one year | more than had been shales NEVER ASKED ABOUT GUILT OF M’NAMARAS ‘ Darrow Tells How Gompers Stood in Dynamite Case, Los Angeles, Dec. 6—The exact pe sition Sanimel Gompers, president « | the American Federation of Labor, oe cupied in the McNamara case, was outlined by Clarence Darrow, chie counsel for the McNamara defense, | who specifically stated that at mm time had Gompers ever asked whether the accused were innocent or guiks Asked whether he had ever told the chief that the Darrow The conrt then began a formal state- | - | Federation of Labor der of Charles J. Haggerty upon which | brothers were innocent, McNamara pleaded guilty and asked | Plied: McNamara if he had any statement! “No, because Gompers never askeé to make. me.” “T have not,” he said. |. “As counsel for these men I conlé “Have vou anything to say?” the not have told him without their per mission. I could have told him the facts if I bad their permission;- » court asked Fredericks. “There has been no dickering or bargaining in this matter,” he said. as he never asked me that question “Counsel on the other side are well | I never was compelled to ask the aware of the usual custom of grant-|for their permission to tell the head of the federatton anything about thei ing clemency to persons pleading guilty. case.” “This defendant, by so pleading, ree “Do you know how much Samu ue settled for all time a question which | Gompers knew about this ca was death, that for his brother aa otherwise would always have been in| “I do not. Never at any time dig imprisonment, and District Attorney doubt. He saves the state great ex-| he mention either the guilt or inne Fredericks urged that clemency be! penditures and served the state in oth- | cence of ihe men. When negotiations shown each man because of his plea | er ways. | that culminated in the McNamaras of guilty and on account of “other) “The defendant will arise,” said/ pleas of guilty were begun I- tele services rendered the state.” ; Judge Bordwell, and commented on} _____ aes James B. McNamara’s plea that he | McNamara’s declaration that he did ack intended to kill no one was scouted | not intend to destroy life. (Continued on page six.) by Judge Bordwell. | & “You well deserve the maximum! "5 SE w penalty,” said the court. “That that} judgment does not extend is not due to any extenuating circumstances, but is the wisdom of court to do oth- erwise.” This he practically reiterat- ed to John J. McNamara. The sentences imposed upon them, while seemingiy widely divergent, are in effect likely to be nearly identical. John J. McNamara is forty-five years old. His sentence, with allow- ance for good behavior, will take him well on the road to the sixties. Judge Bordwell mounted the bench at 10:23 and a moment later Attorney Darrow, chief counsel for the defense, Le Compte Davis andj Joseph Scott, entered. Behind them | trailed the McNamaras. | | Confession is Read. “Are you ready to proceed?” asked Judge Bordwell. | “The state is,” said Fredericks and | read James B. McNamara’s confes- | sion amid «bsolute silence. The state | ment said. } “I, James B. McNamara, defendant in the case of the people, having here- tofore pleaded guilty to the crime of | murder, desire to make this statement of facts: | “and this is the truth: On the night | of Sept. 30, 1910, at 5:45 p. m., I placed im the alley, a portion of the Times} building, suitcases containing sixteen sticks of 80 per cent dynamite, set to explode at 1 o'clock the next morning. “It was my intention to injure the building and scare the owner. I did not intend to take the life of any one. I sincerely regret that these unfortu- nate men lost their lives. If the giv- ing of my life would bring them back I would gladly give it. In fact, in plead- ing guilty to murder in the first degree I have place my life in the hands of the state.” “Is that statement correct?” “It is,” said McNamara. | Is Murder in First Degree. “Then the court finds,” said the) judge, “that the degree of guilt of the defendant is murder in the first de- gree. “James B. McNamara, stand,” he said. “What is your full name?” “James Boyd McNamara,” said the prisoner. you may Dear Amy:- Every home should have a cozy sitting Aoom, where the whole family can get away from the dining Avom aishes and jolly evening. dhe sitting Aoom is the real center of the home, and no woman should neglect fursnish- ing it. Gor the. sitting Acom, substantial gusniture is Lest, Lecause it gets 40 much wear. Be good, spend a Lou. P. §.-You can buy substantial furniture that will Last a hife-time and for a Aeasonalte price, if you go to F, E. REUSSWIG FURNITURE and UNDERTAKING