The result of investigations by a Federal Interstate Trade Commission would be that the information obtained by examination of the records, accounts, books, and papers of corporations would not be made public and all special agents and examiners of the Commission should be strictly prohibited from disclosing information except to the commission. It is difficult to obtain information by ordinary methods from some trusts, for they are like quicksilver,-very elusive. It is hard to shackle them; they are organized by business experts, backed by money and brains, and are tough customers to handle, even by legislators trained in general work and solicitous of the welfare of the public.

During the progress of an investigation by a Federal Interstate Trade Commission, the attorneys who participated in the preparation of the instruments and agreements, under which the individuals or corporations are operating, should be competent witnesses before the Commission, and should not be exempted from testifying fully as to the circumstances under which the papers were drawn.

A Federal Interstate Trade Commission should have full powers to investigate the practices of corporations,-whether of a public or a semi-public character, and to prevent unreasonable restraints of trade; but, on the other hand, the Commission should have power to permit intelligent and legitimate combination and coöperation.

These powers would be essential, in order that the Commission be effective.

It is necessary for the people of the United States, in order to preserve their rights and business opportunities, to regulate public monopolies doing an interstate business, to participate in this regulation, and to exercise control over the trusts.

The Commission could examine and approve the legality of proposed contracts, consolidations, or mergers that might be presented to them; but this approval would not prevent later prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, should restraints in trade result from the operations of the contracts, consolidations, or mergers. A Commission would be more effective dealing with corporations than the Department of Justice, which does not give advice. The Commission,-having the power to create approved competitive conditions,-would, to a certain extent, supplement the process of the courts and the Department of Justice.

The personnel of a Federal Interstate Trade Commission should consist of men of high standing, individuals of ability and incorruptible integrity, absolutely free from political influence, with sound and impartial judgment; such men on the Commission would be the greatest protection to the public interests,-as against private exactions, that could be devised.

CONCLUSIONS

Concentration and coöperation give economic advantages, which limit, in some cases, the losses caused by fierce competition,-and an efficiency required in the development and maintenance of a large foreign trade.

In our trade and commerce with foreign nations, we need a system as efficient as that of our great European competitors, and, in order to get it, concentration and coöperation are necessary; but they should be under the supervision of a Federal Interstate Trade Commission, backed up by the Department of Justice, so that the trade and commerce of the people of the United States may be protected against unlawful and vicious restraints and monopolies.

Industrial combinations and monopolies have become fixtures in the business life of this country; their power for good should be preserved, and this can be accomplished by a Federal Interstate Trade Commission, operating on the same principles as the Interstate Commerce Commission. This would prevent many evils connected with corporations; for instance, the concealment of material facts connected with the organization of a

corporation, unscrupulous promotion, unfair competition, over-capitalization, and the arbitrary raising and lowering of prices.

It is most difficult to prove the intent of a monopoly. If this could be done the Sherman Law would soon restrain all corporations operating in restraint of trade and commerce.

It is not a good policy to threaten with legal procedure corporations that are attempting to do an honorable business, until after the affairs of the corporation have been carefully gone into. If upon investigation the fact is developed that they are operating on the "danger line," these corporations should be given an opportunity to straighten out their affairs, so as to be able to comply with the provisions of the Sherman Law. Many officers of corporations do not know whether or not they are operating in violation of the Law.

At the present time our largest manufacturers, in order to secure a steady supply of material, must be in a position to produce their own raw material.

It is easy enough for some wild citizen politician or theorist to recommend that the Trusts be "busted." These very Trusts, however, should only be prosecuted after a prompt, careful, and confidential examination of their affairs has been made by men properly qualified,-efficient men, who undertake this class of investigation. The reports of inefficient, superficial investigators can

not be relied upon and are most dangerous. The investigation should be promptly made and not extended over a period of from three to seven years, which has been the case only too often in many recent investigations under certain branches of the Government, particularly the Bureau of Corporations.

What the business man wants is Federal incorporation; that is, Federal papers for the organization of corporations, and a Federal Interstate Trade Commission. All this can be accomplished by National legislation.

The question of prohibiting interlocking directorates is a matter needing the attention of the strong arm of the Federal Government. The majority of our great institutions in the form of monopolies have followed this procedure of interlocking directorates, in order to control the affairs of the affiliated corporations, companies, and firms.

The business world looks upon great organizations as a normal development of trade that owes existence, in many cases, to superior efficiency. The Government has abolished many vicious monopolies by civil procedure and, in extreme and rare cases, by criminal action. Criminal action against organized efficiency of production and selling methods in foreign countries is certainly not to be recommended, nor has it been practiced.

The injection of technicalities into court procedure often obstructs indefinitely a final judgment in a Trust case. The judges before whom the