Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:51:38.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential Competition and the American Antitrust Legislation of 1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Benjamin J. Klebaner
Benjamin J. Klebaner
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics, The City College of the City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concepts of actual and potential competition as natural checks on trusts are examined through the literature which accompanied the framing and passage of the Chyton and Federal Trade Commission acts. The contributions of professional economists to these discussions are especially significant in the evolution of the public policies ultimately adopted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , Summer 1964 , pp. 163 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Griffin, Appleton P. C., List of Books (with references to periodicals) Relating to Trusts (3rd ed., Washington, 1907)Google Scholar; Library of Congress, List of References on Trusts 1907–1913 (Washington, 1913)Google Scholar.

2 Thorelli, Hans B., The Federal Antitrust Policy (Baltimore, 1955), p. 567.Google ScholarYoung, Allyn A., “The Sherman Act and the New Antitrust Legislation,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. XXIII (May, 1915), p. 204.Google Scholar

3 Stigler, George J., “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. LXV (February, 1957), pp. 6, 11.Google Scholar On the relationship between Chamberlinian market categories, earlier economic theorizing, and antitrust, see: Peterson, Shorey, “Antitrust and the Classic Model,” American Economic Review, vol. XLVII (March, 1957), pp. 60–78.Google Scholar

4 Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics (8th ed., New York, 1946), p. 341.Google Scholar The first edition has identical wording. A similarly vague definition appears in his Industry and Trade (London, 1919), p. 653. P. W. S. Andrews remarks, in Wilson, Thomas and Andrews, P. W. S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism (Oxford, 1951), p. 142Google Scholar, that as long as entry is possible, Marshall considers the industry competitive. Beginning with the second (1891) edition, Marshall included the sentence about perfect competition. Principles (9th ed., 2 vols., New York, 1961), vol. II, p. 569.

5 Clark, John Bates, Essentials of Economic Theory (New York, 1907), p. 374.Google Scholar See also Klebaner, Benjamin J., “Trusts and Competition; John Bates Clark and John Maurice Clark,” Social Research, vol. XXIX (Winter, 1962), pp. 475–80Google Scholar.

6 Clark, John Bates, “The Real Dangers of the Trusts,” Century Magazine, vol. LXVIII (October, 1904), p. 955Google Scholar; Bullock, Charles J., “Trusts and Public Policy,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. LXXXVII (June, 1901), p. 741Google Scholar; Coleman, William M., “Trusts from an Economic Standpoint,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. VIII (December, 1899), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Rich, George A., “Trusts Their Own Corrective,” Popular Science Monthly, vol. XLIV (April, 1894), p. 741.Google Scholar

7 Gunton, George, “The Economic and Social Aspects of Trusts,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. III (September, 1888), p. 403Google Scholar; Hayes Robbins, H., “Powers and Perils of the New Trusts,” Gunton's Magazine, vol. XVI (June, 1899), pp. 198–99Google Scholar; similarly, Gunton, Principles of Social Economics (New York, 1891), pp. 404, 406, 407.Google Scholar See also: Beach, Charles F. Jr, “Facts About Trusts,” Forum, vol. VIII (September, 1889), p. 69Google Scholar; Beach, Jr, The Trust: An Economic Evolution (Chicago, 1894), p. 12Google Scholar; Roberts, George E., “Why the Trusts Cannot Control Prices,” American Monthly Review of Reviews, vol. XX (September, 1899), p. 307.Google Scholar Roberts was director of the Mint.

8 Taft, William H., Presidential Addresses and State Papers (New York, 1910), p. 15Google Scholar; see also p. 526. In our day, Schumpeter, Joseph A. felt “creative destruction” was important even when “merely an ever-present threat.” Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed., New York, 1950), p. 85Google Scholar.

9 Carnegie, Andrew, “The Bugaboo of Trusts,” North American Review, vol. CXLVIII (February, 1889), p. 150Google Scholar; “Popular Illusions about Trusts,” Century Magazine, vol. LX (May, 1900), p. 149. See also: Wood, Henry, Political Economy of Natural Law (Boston, 1894), pp. 66, 71Google Scholar; Peters, William R., “Benefits of Trusts,” Peters, John P. (ed.), Labor and Capital (New York, 1902), p. 53Google Scholar; U. S. Industrial Commission, Report (19 vols., Washington, 1900–1902), vol. XIX, p. 614; Robinson, Maurice H., “The Report of the Industrial Commission: V — Trusts,” Yale Review, vol. XI (November, 1902), pp. 293–94Google Scholar.

10 Jenks, Jeremiah W., “Trusts in America,” Economic Journal, vol. II (January, 1892), pp. 92–93, 99Google Scholar; Ely, Richard T., Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1900), p. 252Google Scholar; Marburg, Theodore, “Trusts in America,” Economic Review, vol. XI (January, 1901), p. 67Google Scholar; Fisher, Irving, Elementary Principles of Economics (3rd ed., New York, 1912), p. 330.Google Scholar

11 Giddings, Franklin H., “The Persistence of Competition,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. II (March, 1887), p. 67Google Scholar; Bullock, Charles J., Introduction to the Study of Economics (Boston, 1897), p. 325Google Scholar; also in 3rd ed. (New York, 1908), p. 339; Bullock, in Nettleton, A. B. (ed.), Trusts or Competition? (Chicago, 1900), p. 121Google Scholar; Stuart Patterson, C., The Problem of Trusts (Philadelphia, 1903), p. 9.Google Scholar The idle capital argument was also used by the De Pauw University economist James R. Weaver, in Chicago Conference on Trusts, Speeches (Chicago, 1900), p. 297Google Scholar, and in Weeks, Lyman Horace, The Other Side (New York, 1900), p. 74.Google Scholar Marshall referred to potential competition in an 1890 presidential address, “Some Aspects of Competition,” without using the phrase. Pigou, A. C., Memorials of Alfred Marshall (London, 1925), p. 288.Google Scholar

12 Blackmar, Frank W., Economics (Topeka, 1900), p. 437Google Scholar; same in (New York, 1907) edition, p. 457; Montague, Gilbert H., Trusts of To–day (New York, 1904), p. 78.Google Scholar

13 Montgomery, Harry E., Vital American Problems (New York, 1908), pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Jenks, Jeremiah W., The Trust Problem (Rev. ed., New York, 1903), p. 69Google Scholar; Collier, William M., The Trusts (New York, 1900), pp. 126–27Google Scholar; Sprague, O. M. W., in “Governmental Price Regulation – Discussion,” American Economic Review, suppl. III (March, 1913), p. 137.Google Scholar

14 Adams, Henry C., “Trusts,” American Economic Association, Publications, 3rd ser., vol. V (May, 1904), pp. 96–97Google Scholar; Jenks, Trust Problem, p. 70; Montgomery, Vital American Problems, p. 13; Hise, Charles Van, Concentration and Control (New York, 1912), p. 84Google Scholar; Seligman, Edwin R. A., Principles of Economics (New York, 1914), p. 369Google Scholar; in the 1st ed. (New York, 1905), on p. 368.

15 Macvane, Silas, Working Principles of Political Economy (New York, 1890), p. 117Google Scholar; Collier, Trusts, p. 116; Le Rossignol, James E., Monopolies Past and Present (New York, 1901), p. 241Google Scholar; Editorial, “The Real Danger in Trusts,” Century Magazine, vol. LX (May, 1900), p. 153; Montgomery, Vital American Problems, p. 10.

16 Macvane, Working Principles, p. 117; Yarros, Victor S., “The Trust Problem Re-studied,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. VIII (July, 1902), p. 73Google Scholar; Baker, Charles W., Monopolies and the People (3rd ed., New York, 1899), p. 159Google Scholar; Nettleton (ed.), Trusts, p. 79; Jenks, , in Amendment of the Sherman Antitrust Law (Hearings, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, 1908), p. 109Google Scholar; Jones, Eliot, The Trust Problem in the United States (New York, 1921), p. 277Google Scholar.

17 Benjamin Andrews, E., “The Economic Law of Monopoly,” Journal of Social Science, vol. XXVI (February, 1890), pp. 6, 11, 12.Google Scholar In 1894 he saw “the competitive system … fast giving way to … combination. It could benefit society greatly if men improved morally.” “The Combination of Capital,” International Journal of Ethics, vol. IV (April, 1894), p. 334.

18 Thomas, Alsen F., The Slavery of Progress (New York, 1910), pp. 21–22Google Scholar; Meade, Edward S., “The Limitations of Monopoly,” Forum, vol. XXXI (April, 1901), p. 217Google Scholar; Bemis, Edward W., “The Trust Problem — Its Real Nature,” Forum, vol. XXVIII (December, 1899), p. 420Google Scholar; Durand, Edward D., “The Trust Problem,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XXVIII (May, 1914), pp. 398–99.Google Scholar Durand's Harvard lectures also appeared in book form (Cambridge, 1915); Bascom, John, Social Theory (New York, 1895), p. 410.Google Scholar See also 56 Cong., 1 Sess., House Reports, No. 1501, p. 5.

19 Bullock, “Trusts and Public Policy,” pp. 741–42; Walter E. Clark, “Control of Industrial Monopoly,” Rollins Magazine, vol. II (July, 1912), p, 7; Jenks, in Amendment of the Sherman Antitrust Law, p. 108.

20 Nettleton (ed.), Trusts, p. 80; Baker, Monopolies, pp. 85, 253; Davenport, Herbert J., Outlines of Economic Theory (New York, 1896), p. 205Google Scholar; Davenport, , Economics of Enterprise (New York, 1913), p. 485.Google Scholar On the other hand, Bullock, Charles J., “Trust Literature: A Survey and a Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XV (February, 1901), p. 204Google Scholar, argued that capitalists would not be permanently intimidated by destructive competition.

21 Taft, William H., The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York, 1914), pp. 128–29Google Scholar; Carver, Thomas N., The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1904), p. 267Google Scholar; Carver, , Essays in Social Justice (Cambridge, 1915), p. 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 A fighting ship is used by a shipping conference to prevent a new line from getting business by the former's quoting unprofitable rates.

23 Stevens uses the term for “certain practices and methods which have occasionally appeared.”

24 Stevens, William H. S., “Unfair Competition: I,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. XXIX (June, 1914), pp. 283Google Scholar; ibid.: II (September, 1914), 489; Stevens, , Unfair Competition (Chicago, 1917), p. 221.Google Scholar Earlier Stevens had written … “if the Sherman Act can eliminate certain piratical and predatory methods of competition, a larger proportion of the ‘natural’ tendency toward combination would dissolve into the thin air.” “A Group of Trusts and Combinations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XXVI (August, 1912), p. 642.

25 Stevens, “Unfair Competition: I,” p. 490.

26 Wyman, Bruce, “Constructive Trust Control,” World To-Day, vol. XXI (January, 1912), p. 1585Google Scholar; Clark, “Control of Industrial Monopoly,” p. 8; Seager, Henry R., Introduction to Economics (3rd ed., New York, 1905), p. 508.Google Scholar

27 Clark, John Bates, “How to Deal with the Trusts,” Independent, vol. LIII (May 2, 1901), p. 1003Google Scholar; Laurence Laughlin, J., The Elements of Political Economy (Rev. ed., New York, 1896), p. 71Google Scholar; Laughlin, , in Changes in Interstate Commerce Laws (Hearings, Senate Interstate Commerce Committee, Washington, 1911–1912), p. 1004Google Scholar; Davenport, Outlines, p. 314; Seager, Henry R., “Government Regulations of Big Business in the Future,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Industrial Competition and Combination, vol. XLII (July, 1912), p. 244Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Annals, XLII; Seager, , Principles of Economics (New York, 1913), p. 469Google Scholar; Fetter, Frank A., Principles of Economics (New York, 1904), p. 332Google Scholar (original in italics); again in 1913 ed., p. 332; Taussig, Frank W., in “Governmental Price Regulation — Discussion,” American Economic Review, suppl. III (March, 1913), p. 132.Google Scholar

28 Senate Documents, 57 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 73, p. 16.

29 Baker, Monopolies, pp. 247, 249, 253. Baker was prepared to legalize contracts in restraint of trade and permit the establishment of monopolies.

30 Collier, Trusts, p. 310.

31 Clark, John Bates, The Control of Trusts (New York, 1901), pp. 64–66Google Scholar; Bates, John and Clark, John Maurice, Control of Trusts (New York, 1912), p. 192Google Scholar; Marburg, Theodore, in National Civic Federation, Proceedings of the National Conference on Trusts and Combinations (New York, 1908), p. 105.Google Scholar See also Stevens, Ernest G., Civilized Commercialism (New York, 1917), p. 170Google Scholar.

32 Van Hise, Concentration, p. 226. Van Hise was a geologist by profession. In his address before the National Convention of the Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt pronounced Van Hise's main thesis “unquestionably right.” Progressive Principles (New York, 1913), p. 144; Taussig, Frank W., Principles of Economics (2 vols., New York, 1911), vol. II, p. 429Google Scholar; Bullock, Elements, p. 195; Fetter, Principles, p. 332, found also in 3rd ed. (New York, 1913), p. 332.

33 U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. XIX, p. 650.

34 Jenks, Trust Problem, presents a hypothetical example of how a small firm might be harmed (pp. 325–26); Montague, Gilbert H., “The Ethics of Trust Competition,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. XCV (March, 1905), p. 421.Google Scholar Montague had recently left Harvard's Department of Economics to embark on a distinguished career as an antitrust lawyer.

35 Adams, “Trusts,” p. 105; see also Bemis, “The Trust Problem — Its Real Nature,” p. 120; Porter, Kirk H. (comp.), National Party Platforms (New York, 1924), p. 248Google Scholar; Bullock, Elements, p. 193; John Bates Clark, in Chicago Conference on Trusts, Speeches, p. 408; Laurence Laughlin, J., Industrial America (New York, 1906), p. 136Google Scholar; Seligman, Edwin R. A. in Fayant, Frank (ed.), “What Is To Be Done with the Trusts?” New York Times Magazine Section (December 5, 1909), p. 2Google Scholar.

36 Marburg, in National Civic Association, Proceedings, p. 332 (original in italics); Clark, Essentials, pp. 384, 385; Fetter, Principles, p. 332 (original in italics found in 1st and 3rd eds.); Gunton, George, “Trusts and How to Deal with Them,” Chautauquan, vol. X (March, 1890), p. 703Google Scholar; Carver, Essays, p. 109; Clark, “The Real Dangers of the Trusts,” p. 955. In the 4th ed. of his popular Trust Problem, Jenks for the first time stated: “in the fair field, kept deliberately open let the honest cost-cheapening monopoly be welcomed, if it come” (New York, 1917), p. 276.

37 Wyman, Bruce, “Unfair Competition by Monopolistic Corporations,” Annals, XLII p. 73Google Scholar; a similar statement is in his Control of the Market (New York, 1911), pp. 264–65.

38 Laughlin, Industrial America, p. 133. A more moderate recommendation was made by Clark, John Bates, “Monopoly and Tariff Reduction,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. XIX (September, 1904), p. 389.Google ScholarCf. George H. Walker, “What Shall be Done about the Trusts?” Washington State Bar Association, Proceedings Eleventh Annual Session (Olympia, 1899), p. 97.Google Scholar A critique of the popular theory is McVey, Frank L., “Trusts and the Tariff,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. VII (June, 1899), pp. 382–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Baker (Monopolies, 1899 ed., p. 257) had little faith in potential competition but urged removing the tariff where a trust earned enormous profits.

39 Clark, John D., The Federal Trust Policy (Baltimore, 1931), p. 104Google Scholar; Clark and Clark, Control, p. 200; Raymond, Robert L., “Industrial Combinations: Existing Law and Suggested Legislation,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. XX (April, 1912), pp. 313, 319Google Scholar; “Monopolies and the Law,” Nation, vol. XC (January 6, 1910), p. 4; Laurence Laughlin, J., “Good and Bad Trusts,” World To-Day, vol. XXI (January, 1912), p. 1588.Google Scholar

40 Lloyd, Caroline A., Henry Demarest Lloyd (2 vols., New York, 1912), vol. I, pp. 289–90.Google Scholar Similarly, John Bascom wrote in 1895 that “Combination, an inevitable incident of progress, must be accepted and brought into submission to OUT common life.” Social Theory, p. 413. Folwell, in National Civic Federation, The Trust Problem (New York, 1912), p. 369.Google ScholarCf. the comments of Seager and Baker in ibid., pp. 362, 391.

41 Jenks, Jeremiah W., “Trusts in the United States,” Economic Journal, vol. II ( March, 1892), p. 71Google Scholar; Thorelli, Federal Antitrust, p. 376; Taussig, in National Civic Federation, Proceedings, p. 376.

42 Edward S. Meade, “The Fallacy of ‘Big Business,’” Annals, XLII, p. 88; contrast Dewey, Donald, Monopoly in Economics and Law (Chicago, 1959), p. 8Google Scholar; Jenks, Jeremiah W., “Economic Aspect of the Recent Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Trusts,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. XX (April, 1912), p. 357.Google Scholar Jenks would protect “the public interest from direct harm” by legislation or court action, but would keep “the benefits of combination,” ibid.

43 Coleman, “Trusts from an Economic Standpoint,” p. 33; Wyman, Control of the Market, pp. 263, 276; See also Raymond, Robert L., “The Federal Antitrust Act,” Harvard Law Review, vol. XXIII (March, 1910), p. 378Google Scholar, and Stevens, Ernest G., “Civilized Commercialism,” American Law Review, vol. XLVIII (May-June, 1914), pp. 433, 438Google Scholar; Independent, vol. LXXVII (1914), p. 80.

44 Jenks, Jeremiah W., in Friedman, Herbert, “The Trust Problem,” Yale Law Journal, vol. XXIV (April, 1915), pp. 502–503Google Scholar; Hadley, however, thought that the larger the percentage controlled, “the larger the chance that a monopoly may in fact exist,” ibid., p. 502; Durand, “The Trust Problem,” pp. 389, 401; Sherman, in Congressional Record, 51 Cong., 2 Sess., 2460 (March 21, 1890); Collier, Trusts, p. 130; Howland, , “Monopolies: The Cause and the Remedy,” Columbia Law Review, vol. X (February, 1910), pp. 102, 106Google Scholar; Robert R. Reed proposed a $200,000,000 capital limit, except by special act of Congress. “American Democracy and Corporate Reform,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. CXIII (February, 1914), p. 267.

45 Clark, in Annals, XLII, p. 66; Clark, “The Real Dangers of the Trusts,” p. 958; Clark and Clark, Control, pp. 194–95; Clark, John Bates, in Interstate Trade (Hearings, Senate Interstate Commerce Committee, Washington, 1914), p. 364.Google Scholar A similar proposal is in Haney, Lewis H., Business Organization and Combination (Rev. ed., New York, 1914), p. 409.Google Scholar

46 Van Hise, in Interstate Trade, p. 98; and in Interstate Trade Commission (Hearings, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Washington, 1914 ), pp. 348–49; Van Hise, Concentration, pp. 227, 252.

47 National Civic Federation, Proceedings, pp. 492–93.

48 Stanley Bill, H.R. 26130 (1912), in U.S. Congress, Bills and Debates in Congress Relating to Trusts (3 vols., Washington, 1914), vol. III, p. 2542Google Scholar; La Follette Bill, S. 2552 (1913), ibid., vol. III, pp. 3118–19. Cummins' bill would have had the trade commission judge whether the capital of a firm was so extensive as to “destroy or prevent substantially competitive conditions in the general field of industry in which such corporation is engaged,” ibid., vol. III, pp. 2430–31; elsewhere he argued for a 25 per cent limit, Congressional Record, 63 Cong., 1 Sess., 4283 (August 29, 1913). See also: Sterling, in House Reports, 62 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 1127, p. 345, and Congressional Record, 62 Cong., 2 Sess., 10529–30 (August 8, 1912); Gardner, in ibid., 10627 (August 9, 1912); Morgan, in Interstate Trade Commission, p. 170.

49 Bryan, William J., “Dissolution and Prevention,” The Reader, vol. IX (May, 1907), p. 578Google Scholar; Porter (comp.), Platforms, p. 277; Bryan, , Speeches (2 vols., New York, 1913), vol. II, pp. 136–37.Google Scholar

50 Morison, Elting E., et al. (eds.), Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (8 vols., Cambridge, 1951–1954), vol. VI, p. 1129Google Scholar; Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (20 vols., New York, n. d. ), vol. XV, p. 7078 (Seventh Annual Message); Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Trusts, the People, and the Square Deal,” Outlook, vol. XCIX (November 18, 1911), p. 655Google Scholar; “The Taft-Wilson Trust Programme,” Outlook, vol. CII (September 21, 1912), p. 105; Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. XIV, p. 6648; Mowry, George E., The Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 1900–1912 (New York, 1958), pp. 132–33.Google Scholar In a 1903 speech before Milwaukee businessmen, Roosevelt described big corporations as “the result of an inevitable process of economic evolution,” quoted in Meier, Walter F., “What Attitude Should Government Assume toward Trusts?” American Journal of Sociology, vol. IX (September, 1903), p. 213.Google Scholar

51 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. XVI, p. 7369. See also vol. XVII, pp. 7651, 7655, and Taft, Presidential Addresses, p. 527.

52 Wilson, Woodrow, The New Freedom (New York, 1913), pp. 180, 191Google Scholar; Baker, Ray Stannard, Woodrow Wilson (6 vols., Garden City, 1927–1937), vol. IV, p. 357.Google Scholar Porter (comp.), Platforms, p. 322.

53 Judson, Frank N., The Rightful Relation of the State to Private Business Associations (St. Louis, 1890), p. 16Google Scholar; Baker, Monopolies (1889 ed.), pp. 254–55; ibid. (1899 ed.), p. 357; Gunton, “Trusts and How to Deal with Them,” p. 703; Raymond, Robert L., “A Statement of the Trust Problem,” Harvard Law Review, vol. XVI (December, 1902), p. 90Google Scholar; Seligman, Principles (1914 ed.), p. 640; Taussig, Principles, vol. II, p. 433; Seager, in Annals, XLII, p. 244; Adams, Henry C., “What is Publicity?” North American Review, vol. CLXXV (December, 1902), p. 904Google Scholar; Jenks, Jeremiah W., in Amendments to Sherman Antitrust Law (Hearings, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, 1914), p. 307Google Scholar; Jenks, Trust Problem (1900 and 1914 eds.), pp. 223–24; Jenks, in Amendment of the Sherman Antitrust Law, p. 109; Catchings, head of Central Foundry Co., in Interstate Trade Commission, pp. 54–55.

54 U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. I, p. 6; U.S. Commissioner of Corporations, Annual Report, 1912 (Washington, 1913), p. 3. By 1902 it was said that the inadequacy of publicity as a remedy had been “widely recognized.” Yarros, “The Trust Problem Restudied,” p. 68.

55 Sherman, in Congressional Record, 51 Cong., 1 Sess., 2457, 2459, 2569 (March 21, 24, 1890); Reagan, in ibid., 51 Cong., 1 Sess., 2469 (March 21, 1890); Culberson, in ibid., 51 Cong., 1 Sess., 5951 (June 11, 1890); Young, “The Sherman Act and the New Antitrust Legislation,” p. 213. Justice Holmes went so far as to argue that “there is no combination in restraint of trade, until something is done with the intent to exclude strangers to the combination from competing with it in some part of the business which it carries on.” Northern Securities Co. u. U.S., 193 U.S. 197, p. 409 (1905) (dissent).

56 Lishan, John M., “The Sherman Act” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1958), p. 38.Google Scholar Thorelli, Federal Antitrust, p. 571. See also Miller, John Perry, Unfair Competition (Cambridge, 1941), p. 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarWatkins, Myron W., “The Sherman Act: Its Design and Its Effects,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XLIII (November, 1928), p. 42Google Scholar.

57 Hoar, in Congressional Record, 51 Cong., 1 Sess., 3152 (April 8, 1890); House Reports, 56 Cong., 1 Sess., No. 1501, p. 33; Ray, in Congressional Record, 56 Cong., 1 Sess., 6306 (May 31, 1900).

58 Montague, Gilbert H., “Defects of the Sherman Antitrust Law,” Yale Law Journal, vol. XIX (December, 1909), pp. 88, 107, 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted almost verbatim as “Trust Regulation Today,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. CV (January, 1910), pp. 1–8. The President of the National Association of Clothiers, Marks, Marcus M., also urged that reasonable agreements be made lawful in “Effects of Anti-Trust Legislation on Business,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. XXXII (July-December, 1908), p. 48.Google Scholar

59 Seager, Henry R., “The Recent Trust Decisions,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. XXVI (December, 1911), pp. 610–11Google Scholar; Wyman, Control of the Market, p. 234; Levy, , in Trust Legislation (Hearings, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, 1914), pp. 241, 247–18.Google Scholar

60 Laughlin, “Good and Bad Trusts,” p. 1586; D. W. Kuhn, Sherman Anti-Trust Law (Address before American Mining Congress, October, 1911), p. 5; Beck, James M., “The Supreme Court Decisions: The Quandary,” North American Review, vol. CXCIV (July, 1911), p. 70.Google Scholar Beck was U.S. Solicitor-General, 1921–1925; he favored a government tribunal to hear complaints, Annals, XLII, p. 300. Eddy, Arthur J., The New Competition (New York, 1912), p. 333.Google Scholar The President of the Virginia Bar Association urged the repeal of the Sherman Act on the grounds that competition should not be the life of trade, and the “absolutely uncertain and vague” law did not distinguish between good and bad trusts. J. F. Bullitt, “The Present Status of the Trust Question,” Virginia State Bar Association, Report of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting (n.p., 1912), pp. 170, 182.

61 Walker, Aldace F., “Unregulated Competition Self-Destructive,” Forum, vol. XII (December, 1891), p. 515Google Scholar; Walker, , “Anti-Trust Legislation,” Forum, vol. XXVII (May, 1899), p. 262.Google Scholar Walker was a member of the original ICC, 1887–1889; from 1889–1892 he was connected with the Trunk Line and Central Traffic Associations; after 1894 he headed the Santa Fe. Van Hise, in Interstate Trade, pp. 95, 96; Van Hise, in Trust Legislation, p. 557; see also F. F. Fish (Boston attorney) in ibid., p. 1511 and L. C. Boyle (Kansas City attorney for the Yellow Pine Manufacturers Association), Interstate Trade Commission, p. 442.

62 Rep. Dick Morgan, in Trust Legislation, p. 4; Dean William D. Lewis, University of Pennsylvania Law School, in ibid., p. 399; Newton Baker, J. (D.C. attorney), “Regulation of Corporations,” Yale Law Journal, vol. XXII (February, 1913), p. 329Google Scholar; Jenks, in Amendments to Sherman Antitrust Law, p. 302.

63 Bennett, attorney for manufacturers of printing presses, in Trust Legislation, p. 301; Dushkind, attorney for Independent Tobacconists Association of N.Y.C., in ibid., p. 702; Boston, Charles A., “The Spirit behind the Sherman Anti-Trust Law,” Yale Law Journal, vol. XXI (March, 1912), pp. 358, 371.Google Scholar

64 National Civic Federation, Proceedings, p. 8; Untermyer, Samuel, “The Supreme Court Decisions: The Remedy,” North American Review, vol. CXCIV ( July, 1911), p. 77Google Scholar; Thorelli, Federal Antitrust, p. 576.

65 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. XVII, p. 7655 (1911 Annual Message); Congressional Record, 62 Cong., 3 Sess., 897 (December 19, 1912). See also Wickersham, Attorney-General George W., The Administration's Anti-Trust Record (Washington, 1912), p. 26Google Scholar.

66 Wilson, Woodrow, Public Papers (ed. by Baker, R. S. and Dodd, W. E., 6 vols., Garden City, 1925–1927), vol. I, p. 29Google Scholar; Wilson, New Freedom, pp. 17, 191, 221; Davidson, John W. (ed.), A Crossroads of Freedom (New Haven, 1956), p. 516Google Scholar; see also ibid., pp. 78, 269, 464. For a similar stress on a free field see W. R. Hammond (Atlanta Judge), “Evil and Cure of Monopolistic Business Tendency,” Georgia Bar Association, Report of the Twenty-ninth Annual Session (Macon, 1912), pp. 129, 131Google Scholar; Shaw, Albert (ed.), Messages and Papers of Woodrow Wilson (2 vols., New York, 1924), vol. I, p. 42Google Scholar (1913 Annual Message); ibid., vol. I, p. 52 (1914 Special Message on Trusts).

67 Dana Durand, E., “The Trust Legislation of 1914,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XXIX (November, 1914), p. 73.Google ScholarCf. Jones, Trust Problem, p. 335; Clark, Federal Trust Policy, p. 168.

68 Senate Reporta, 62 Cong., 3 Sess., No. 1326, pp. 3–4; Walsh, in Congressional Record, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., 16145 (October 5, 1914); Chilton, in ibid., 14326 (August 27, 1914); Wilson, Public Papers, vol. I, p. 189; see also, ibid., vol. II, p. 318.

69 Link, Arthur S., Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910–1917 (New York, 1954), p. 73Google Scholar; Reed, “The New Way with the Trusts,” quoted in Literary Digest, vol. XLIX (October 24, 1914), p. 778; Senate Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 698, p. 1; Henry L. Stimson (Secretary of War in Taf's Cabinet), Address at the Republican Club New York City on December 15, 1911, p. 6.

70 Newlands in Congressional Record, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., 12939 (July 29, 1914); Hollis, in ibid., 12146 (July 15, 1914); 63 Cong., 2 Sess., House Reports, No. 1142, pp. 18–19; Rublee, George, “The Original Plan and Early History of the Federal Trade Commission,” Academy of Political Science Proceedings, vol. XI (January, 1926), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Hardy, in Congressional Record, 62 Cong., 1 Sess., 1232 (May 16, 1911). The notion that monopoly was built on unfair practices was challenged by Progressive Donald Richberg in Trust Legislation, p. 419.

71 Williams, Talcott, “No Combination Without Regulation,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. XXXII (July-December, 1908), p. 258Google Scholar; Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. XIV, p. 7079; Bruce Wyman, in Annals, XLII, p. 71; Congressional Record, 62 Cong., 1 Sess., 1212 (May 15, 1911).

72 Herbert K. Smith, in Amendments to Sherman Antitrust Law, p. 333; see also, William Draper Lewis, in Trust Legislation, p. 398; Porter (comp.), Platforms, pp. 341, 354; Senate Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 597, pp. 9, 10, 12.

73 James R. Garfield (ex-Secretary of the Interior), Annals, XLII, pp. 144–45; Henry R. Towne (of Yale and Towne), in Trust Legislation, p. 524.

74 Senate Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 597, p. 10; Henderson, Gerard C., The Federal Trade Commission (New Haven, 1925), pp. 21, 22Google Scholar; Seager, Henry R. and Guliek, Charles A. Jr, Trust and Corporation Problems (New York, 1929), p. 415Google Scholar; Newlands, in Senate Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 597, p. 27.

75 Dushkind, in Trust Legislation, pp. 711–712; House Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 533, p. 7.

76 Link, Wilson and the Progressive Era, pp. 72–73. In his Special Message on Trusts, January 20, 1914 (loc. cit., note 66), pp. 85–86, Wilson advocated a trade commission. Durand, “The Trust Legislation of 1914,” pp. 78, 90, 97; Porter (comp.), Platforms, p. 341 (Progressive plank).

77 Wilson, Special Message on Trusts, January 20, 1914, pp. 81–88 (loc. cit., note 66).

78 House Banking and Currency Committee, Report of the Committee … to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit (Washington, 1913), p. 161.Google Scholar

79 Wilson, Special Message on Trusts, January 20, 1914, p. 87 (loc. cit., note 66); Taft, Special Message, January 7, 1910, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. XVII, p. 7455; Burton, Theodore E., Corporations and the State (New York, 1911), p. 122.Google Scholar For a lawyer's arguments against holding companies see J. Newton Baker, “Regulation of Corporations,” p. 330. For a lawyer's favorable attitude see Albert H. Walker, in Trust Legislation, p. 1396.

80 Clark and Clark, Control, p. 191; Untermyer, in Trust Legislation, p. 858.

81 House Reports, 63 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 627, p. 17. John Bates Clark also used the term “abomination” in “After the Trusts, What?” World To-day, vol. XXI (November, 1911, p. 1296. E. Dana Durand commented that Section 7 of the Clayton Act added “nothing of real value to the Sherman Act.” “The Trust Legislation of 1914,” p. 83. For the legislative history of Section 7, see Martin, David D., Mergers and the Clayton Act (Berkeley, 1959), chap. 2Google Scholar.

82 Burton, Corporations, p. 174; Frederick H. Allen (corporation attorney), in Trust Legislation, p. 1168; Benjamin, R. M., “The Evolution and Prevention of Trusts and Monopolies,” Albany Law Journal, vol. LXVIII (August, 1906), p. 246.Google Scholar A comprehensive discussion of remedies for corporate abuses is found in Haney, Business Organization, pp. 383–402.

83 Reed, Robert R., “American Democracy and Corporate Reform,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. CXIII (February, 1914), p. 259Google Scholar; Reed, in Interstate Trade Commission, pp. 332–33, 344; Reed, in Trust Legislation, pp. 591, 625.

84 Wright, Chester W., “The Trust Problem: Prevention versus Alleviation,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. XX (June, 1912), p. 582Google Scholar.

85 John R. Dos Passos, Commercial Trusts (New York, 1901), p. 63.

86 Miller, John Perry, “Woodrow Wilson's Contribution to Antitrust Policy,” in Latham, Earl (ed.), The Philosophy and Policies of Woodrow Wilson (Chicago, 1958), pp. 134, 143Google Scholar.

87 Attorney-General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws, Report (Washington, 1955), pp. 326, 334; Kaplan, A. D. H. and Kahn, Alfred, “Big Business in a Competitive Society,” Fortune, vol. XLVII (February, 1953), see. 2, p. 4.Google Scholar

88 American Bar Association Section on Antitrust Law, Proceedings, vol. XII (Chicago, 1958), pp. 105–202Google Scholar, esp. pp. 177, 186, 202.