direct benefit which intelligence and mental discipline on the part of the general public confer upon every resident and owner of property; while the transfer tax in a more radical manner appropriates a portion of the unearned increment which inures to heirs, and applies it to the common fund comprised in the budget required to meet the expenses of government.

Unregulated Competition Effectuates Trusts.-It is too late in the day to feel required to dilate upon the injuries that resulted from the unwillingness of the State to divorce itself from the vague generality that unlimited and unrestrained competition is a blessing and advantage in every situation and under all circumstances. The chapter in our national life that is inscribed with the record of Standard Oil, the Beef Trust and kindred combinations is written too plainly and is too recent for more than passing notice by way of illustration; fortunately these situations so inimical to general social and economic progress, are at last in a fair way to be relegated to the sphere of history; and whatever problems the Republic shall be called upon in future to face in working out the practical application of its career and aims in national life, the vital questions of the prevention and control of predatory trusts seem well in hand and in a fair way to be solved through preventive and curative legislation well adapted to achieve that end. At least, as we have seen, such was the Congressional purpose, when enacting the Clayton Law; and also when providing the machinery of the Federal Trade Commission to carry into effect that supplement to the Anti-trust laws.

Limitation of Relief to Results Obtained by Suits Solely Instituted by Government,-A Grave Question.-It has been shown (pages 77, 78), that much retracing of steps along the pathway leading to the restraint and control of illicit monopolies and restraints of trade became necessary because of the narrow definition of "commerce" adopted and applied by the Supreme Court in the Knight case.18 That there was some doubt as to the extent to which the courts would go in applying the statute, and that it was fully recognized that a narrow and technical construction might nullify its terms, is apparent in the record of the discussion which attended the passage of the Sherman Law.

After it had received, with the exception of one vote, the 13 U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1.

unanimous approval of the Senate, the proposed measure was taken up by the House, May 1, 1890, and the debate became general. In the course of his defense of its provisions, Mr. Culberson, of Texas, while speaking for the Judiciary Committee, was interrogated by Mr. Henderson, of Iowa, as to whether in view of the market-control secured by the trusts-"this bill, in his judgment, reaches that difficulty or not." To this question Mr. Culberson replied by saying: "I believe it will if it is construed as we think it ought to be construed by the courts." Mr. Henderson then continued his enquiry by asking: "Does the bill go as far as Congress has power to go to strike at that damnable system?" To which Mr. Culberson replied: "That is the opinion of the committee."14

In the first particular, the courts have justified the confidence reposed in their wisdom and acumen through a later virtual reversal of the attitude adopted in the Knight case; but it is now apparent that Congress "had power to go" several steps further by: (1) assuming a broader definition of "commerce" and so enlarging the scope of the law as to include interferences therewith as well as restraints and monopolies, among the prohibited acts; and (2) granting specifically and beyond question to individuals the power to invoke its aid.

It is certain that failure to include any right of individual initiative had much to do with limiting the usefulness of the statute and deferring the date of its active employment in the protection of public interests.

11. FOREIGN ANTI-TRUST LAWS DISCUSSED.

Canadian Anti-Trust Law Considered.-That wisdom is not confined to any land-is not the perquisite of any race or government—is shown by the provisions existing in the neighboring Canadian jurisdiction.

In contradistinction to the distrust of individual action and the preference for bureaucratic ideas and methods displayed by the Federal party at the inception of our government, leaving some trace thereof discernable in the attitude of Senators Sherman, Hoar and Edmunds and others of that school of thought a century later, it is refreshing to see democratic ideals success

14 Congressional Record, 51st Congress, first session, pages 4090-4091.

fully put in force and practice, even though under a government which is monarchial in name.

In Canada, as mentioned above, anti-trust regulations are not left to be enforced solely by public officials, for the citizens—or subjects who have been injured or fear injury are presumed to possess the intelligence, foresight and courage to defend their rights, when the weapon is placed in their hands or within their reach.

Thus, it is provided in the Canadian laws1 that

"Where six or more persons, British subjects resident in Canada and of full age, are of opinion that a combine exists, and that prices have been enhanced or competition restricted by reason of such combine, to the detriment of consumers or producers, such persons may make an application to a judge for an order directing an investigation into such alleged combine." Upon receiving the petition, the judge within ten days must appoint a time and place for an investigation, with full power to summon witnesses, grant adjournments, and to enquire into every essential fact.

The statute then proceeds:

"If upon such hearing the judge is satisfied there is reasonable ground for believing that a combine exists which is injurious to trade, or has operated to the detriment of consumers or producers, and that it is in the public interest that an investigation should be held, the judge shall direct an investigation under the provisions of this act." The complainant and the defending party are each entitled to nominate a member of the statutory board of enquiry, and these members are empowered to select a judge, who shall sit as the third member of the board, and shall preside at its meetings.

Full publicity for their report is provided. The penalty for disobedience, if the charge is sustained, consists of $1,000 for each day of continued trade-restraint after the date set for cessation of the prohibited acts; and the import laws may be so modified

15 Combines Investigation Act (1910), 9-10 Edward VII, Chap. 9; An Act to Amend Inland Revenue Act, 4 Edward VII, Chap. 17; Canadian legislation concerning patents,-Revised Statutes of Canada, Vol. III, Chap. 146, Sections 496-498. For Anti-trust measure antedating Sherman Law and containing provision prohibiting undue restraints of production, etc.,— see Stat. of Canada, 1889, Chap. 41.

as to permit free importation of the monopolized articles, or an invention may be removed from the protection of letters patent,as the particular situation requires. In addition, the person"who thereafter continues so to offend, is guilty of an indictable offense."

The proceeding throughout is summary; and the enforcement is at no stage hampered by undue delay:

"The governor in council may make such regulations not inconsistent with this act, as to him seem necessary for carrying out the provisions of this act and for the efficient administration thereof."

Within fifteen days after any of the steps thus authorized are taken by the governor, he is required to transmit the regulations for consideration by the provincial parliament if in session, or at the next session of that legislative body.

Plan Apparenty Offers Immediate Effective Relief.-Here we have in effect a complete plan for immediate effective checking of monopolistic tendencies "where six or more persons" feel themselves aggrieved.

United States and Canadian Procedure Compared.—When these provisions combining simplicity of method with the promise of prompt and efficacious results are read in parallel columns with the tedious and cumbersome chancery practice provided under the Sherman Anti-trust statute, it is readily seen that benefits of free institutions may exist in superior form under a monarchial government. In brief, the changes embodied in the Clayton Law and the Federal Trade Commission Act consist of a necessary though belated modernization of our Anti-trust laws.

Return to Normal Conditions Indicated.-It is fortunate that trusts and monopolies have been to so considerable an extent removed or curbed under laws in which distrust of citizeninitiative constituted a predominant feature; but it would have been folly to longer delay the enactment of laws which will expedite the return of conditions of normal and healthy competition in business, extending throughout the general field of commerce, and reaching into every department of national life.

Further Consideration of Foreign Anti-trust Regulations. -Other foreign jurisdictions have provided other means of enforcement for measures intended to meet and overcome monopolies and restraints of trade.

In Great Britain1 the solution of this problem has been sought through enforced publicity and the agency of boards of trade. In Australia and New Zealand1s their protective statutes bear a general resemblance to the Anti-trust laws which we have seen are in force in the Dominion of Canada. The Colony of the Cape of Good Hope has in force and effect an "Act to Prevent a Monopoly of the Meat Trade," which operates by means of a registered license. When arbitrary price-fixing or other unfair methods in restraint of traffic are shown, the license may be withdrawn and the party guilty of the prohibited practices is prevented from again engaging in that line of business for the space of two years.

Under the laws of Japan, if a company does acts contrary to the public welfare or to good morals, the court may on the application of a public procurator or of its own motion order its dissolution.20

"Unfair competition" as a term relating to statutes and regulations that concern restraints of trade, is an expression which appears to have been coined in Australia; and the revision of our Anti-trust laws owes much of its form and presumptive efficiency to the intelligent ideas which the dependencies of Great Britain have contributed to this department of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.

12. COMMISSION LAW AND CLAYTON LAW BROADEN MEANS OF RELIEF.

Section 16 of the Clayton Law Supplies Adequate Means of Relief. Fortunately we no longer find it requisite to wander afield in foreign jurisdictions or to search the statutes of our several States for means to enable individual citizens to initiate methods of relief when beset by restraining or monopolistic conditions in trade; speedy and adequate relief may now be secured

16 Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, 25 and 26 Vict., Chap. 96, Sec. 84. See Chitty's Digest of the Laws of England; also Encyc. of the Laws of England, 2d Ed., Vol. II.

17 The Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906; the Excise Tariff (No. 16 of 1906); the Patent Act of 1903.

18 Acts for Repression of Monopolies in Trade or Commerce, New Zealand Consol. Statutes, Vol. IV, Appendix D, Act 140, Sec. 28 (1910). 19 No. 15 of Laws of 1907.

20 Commercial Code of Japan, Book II, Chap. 48 (Loenholm).