were placed there in order that they might serve humanity in various ways. [Applause.]

Mr. SWITZER. I would like to ask if God had not anything to do with the growing of timber?

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not think my Christian friend requires an answer from me upon that question. [Applause.] The President said, among other things:

What we are purposing to do, therefore, is, happily, not to hamper or interfere with business as enlightened business men prefer to do it, or in any sense to put it under the ban. The antagonism between business and government is over. We are now about to give expression to the best business judgment of America, to what we know to be the business conscience and honor of the land. The Government and bus!ness men are ready to meet each other halfway in a common effort to square business methods with both public opinion and the law. The best-informed men of the business world condemn the methods and processes and consequences of monopoly as we condemn them, and the instinctive judgment of the vast majority of business men everywhere goes with them. We shall now be their spokesmen. That is the strength of our position and the sure prophecy of what will ensue when our reasonable work is done.

In pursuance of that notable message and in accord with its high purpose and courageous spirit the members of the Judiciary Committee have presented to the House for its consideration and determination this program of antitrust legislation. We confidently believe that its enactment into law will bring a new tone, a new spirit, a new independence, an initiative and a freedom to business that it has never known before. We believe that it will open the door of opportunity to those who have endeavored to enter the field of business free and untrammeled and that its manifold blessings will be more and more evident to all of our citizens as soon as business readjustments have taken place under its operation.

The committee has ever kept in mind and has endeavored to write into the law those things that will not hurt or hinder honestly conducted business, and it has kept before it the standard of justice, of equality, of opportunity, to all the people of the country.

This bill in its entirety is responsive to the best and most enlightened standards existing among men. The Sherman law, so called, passed in 1890, and was enacted to meet a condition that was becoming intolerable, indefensible, and oppressive, This bill supplements that act without changing its essential features. The speedy enactment of this bill into law will mark a new era in the business development of this Nation. Preceded in this administration by the tariff and currency legislation, it is the culminating feature of the program promised by our party platform, indorsed by the people of the Nation, urged by the President of the United States, and now to be enacted into law by the Congress of the United States. When the historian comes to write the story of the Wilson administration and this period of our national development, I think it will be referred to as the great constructive period of our history. We are, I believe, happily emerging from an era in which the standard of business morality has not been a credit to the country; from an era of criticism which laid bare the unfair and oppressive practices of business, but had in it only the germ of construction which is now finding its full fruition in this pending legislation. No more earnest effort has ever been made by any body of men in any assemblage anywhere to readjust business enter

prises, to develop and equalize opportunity, than by those who have been following the guidance of President Wilson in the tariff, currency, and antitrust legislation. [Applause.]

The all-important thing is to proceed sanely, fairly, and justly, in order that our people in this great land may share in the bounteous blessings that the Almighty has poured out with lavish hand in unstinted measure. The day of the man or the corporation or group of individuals who are a law unto themselves, who trample upon the laws of municipality, State, and Nation, who sweep aside every principle of equity and justice and fair dealing in their striving for unholy wealth, influence, and power by the enjoyment of some special privilege is, I believe, passing.

Their greatness and their power has neither awed nor influenced your committee, but, rather, has impressed it with the splendid opportunity which was afforded to legislate for that great unnumbered body of our citizens who are looking with their faces uplifted to this Congress to do justice to them and to give to them and their children the free and untrammeled right of doing business without bending the suppliant knee to any petty tyrant who heads some great industrial enterprise that wants the entire field for himself and all the citizens for his victims. [Applause.]

The policy of this legislation, the aim, the hopes, and the aspirations of the members of your committee are to build up, to construct, to develop, and to enlarge opportunity and to place business upon a footing so sound, so stable, so enduring, that countless millions of people will for years to come look back from the midst of their prosperity and their happiness to this great constructive piece of legislation in the trinity of measures passed by this administration.

Let us see what this antitrust measure seeks to accomplish.

DEFINITION OF COMMERCE.

The bill, in the first place, seeks to broaden the meaning of the word "commerce," as used in the Sherman Act of July 2, 1800, so as to make it include trade and commerce between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States.

PREVENTION OF UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.

One of the chief provisions of the bill, and one which should command the support and win the commendation of every Member of the House, is the provision of the bill seeking to prevent unfair discrimination. One of the greatest evils in business at the present time is this unfair trade practice. Certain great corporations, and even some of the lesser ones, have stifled and choked out competition by selling their products at a lower price than their competitors in certain communities than in all other places where they have no competition. Invariably, when in any particular community they have vanquished their little competitor and put him out of business, they raise the price and rule the market with undisputed sway. This bill forbids such discrimination when it is made with purpose or intent to destroy or wrongfully injure the business of a competitor, either of such dealer or seller. The bill seeks only to prevent the unfair practice. It does not prevent discrimination in prices of commodities on account of differences in grade,

quality, and quantity of the commodity sold, or on account of due allowance for the difference in the cost of transportation. The chief offenders in this direction have been the Standard Oil Co. and the American Tobacco Co. Any fair-minded man can readily see that where in the community a corporation seeks to kill off competition by lowering the price of the commodity even below the cost of production or manufacture in many instances, this loss must be made up by charging more than the fair market price in other communities where there is no competition, but a free field to charge all that the consumer can possibly stand.

This evil practice has been one most widespread and one that has wrought great havoc with competitors and with the public. Different States of the Union, some 19 in number, have tried to cope with this evil, but their efforts have been weak and ineffectual. This is so because the method that proved disastrous and sent the prices soaring in the other sections of the same State to recoup the loss in a specific locality, was carried out on the same plan, but on a larger scale. These gigantic organizations doing business in the 48 States of the Union were able, in States that prevented discrimination in different localities in the same State, to put their prices so uniformly low that they swept all competition from the State. Then, in order to recoup their losses in the State, they used the other States in the Union to make up their profits where they had no competition.

In the State which I have the honor to represent in part this evil practice was recognized and our legislature in 1912 passed an act, chapter 651, which I shall incorporate in my speech with some Massachusetts court decisions and illustrative cases on the evils of contracts which seek to restrain trade. I had urged and voted years ago for legislation of this character while a member of the Massachusetts House and Senate, and it is a great privilege to now be a member of an American Congress that will put through this splendid provision of law abolishing unfair discriminations. [Applause.]

Who can refuse to support a proposition of this character that has bound up in it the absolute breaking up of a great evil in business, the continuance of which will cost the American people millions of dollars and the ending of which will bring to business free and unrestrained competition and to the public an open market and reduced prices? This feature of the bill is one of the most praiseworthy and commendable in it. [Applause.]

DECISIONS AND ILLUSTRATIVE CASES ON THE EVILS OF CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

[Massachusetts Law, chap. 651, acts 1912.]

Any person, firm, association, or corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in the Commonwealth and engaged in the production, manufacture, or distribution of any commodity in general use, that shall maliciously, or for the purpose of destroying the business of a competitor and of creating a monopoly in any locality, discriminate between different sections, communities, towns, or cities of this Commonwealth or between purchasers by selling such commodity at a lower rate for such purpose in one section, community, town, or city than is charged for such commodity by the vendor in another section, community, town, or city in the Commonwealth, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade or quality and in the cost of transportation, shall be deemed guilty of unfair discrimination, which Is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful. (L. 1912, c. 651, sec. 1.)

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, or corporation to combine with any other person, firm, association, or corporation for the purpose of destroying the trade or business of any person, firm, association, or corporation engaged in selling goods or commodities and of creating a monopoly within this Commonwealth, and any such combination is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful. (Id., sec. 2.) Any person, firm, association, or corporation found guilty of violating any provision of this act, if an individual, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not less than one month or more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and if the offender is a corporation, then by a fine as aforesaid. (Id.. sec. 3.)

Whoever, in his individual capacity, or acting in behalf of any firm, association, or corporation, for the purpose of evading any provision of this act, shall appoint agents, secure or hold the control of corporate stock, or by agreement with any other person, firm, association, or corporation cause any of the commodities mentioned in section 1 to be sold for the purpose of such evasion or attempt to evade, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for not less than six months or not more than five years, if an individual; and if any of the acts specified in this section are done by a corporation, then the directors, stockholders, or agents authorizing such evasion or discrimi nation shall each be held guilty thereof and shall be punished in the manner provided in this section for individuals. (Id., sec. 4.)

All contracts or agreements made in violation of any provision of this act shall be void. (Id., scc. 5.)

It shall be the duty of the district attorneys, in their districts, and of the attorney general to enforce the provisions of this act by ap propriate actions in courts of competent, jurisdiction, but nothing herein shall limit the right of any court to issue warrants and make commitments to await the action of the grand jury under this act in the case of crimes under the common law, and such power is hereby given to the courts of the Commonwealth. (Id., sec. 6.)

If complaint shall be made to the secretary of the Commonwealth that any person, firm, association, or corporation anthorized to do business in this Commonwealth is guilty of any violation of this act, it shall be the duty of the secretary of the Commonwealth to refer the matter to the attorney general, who shall, if the facts justify it in his judgment, Institute proceedings in the courts against such persons, firm, association, or corporation. (Id. sec. 7.)

If any corporation, foreign or domestic, authorized to do business in this Commonwealth is found guilty of any violation of this act, such finding shall cause a forfeiture of all the privileges and rights conferred upon the corporation by general or special law of this Commonwealth and shall bar its right to do business in this Commonwealth. (Id., sec. S.)

If any corporation, after having been found guilty of any violation of this act, shall continue or attempt to do business in this Commonwealth, it shall be the duty of the attorney general, by a proper action in the name of the Commonwealth, to oust such corporation from all business of every kind and character in this Commonwealth. (Id., sec. 9.)

Nothing in this act shall be construed as repealing any other act, or part of an act, except such acts or parts of acts, if any there be, as are inconsistent herewith. (Id., sec. 10.)

[Chap. 709.]

An act to enlarge the powers and duties of the attorney general. SECTION 1. It shall be the duty of the attorney general, and he is hereby authorized, to take cognizance of all violations of law or of orders of courts, tribunals, or commissions affecting the general welfare of the people, including combinations, agreements, and unlawful praetices in restraint of trade or for the suppression of competition, or for the undue enhancement of the price of articles or commodities in common use, and to institute or cause to be instituted such criminal or civil proceedings before the appropriate State and Federal courts, tribunals, and commissions as the attorney general may deem to be for the interest of the public, and to investigate all matters in which he has reason to believe that there has been such violation. To carry out the purposes of this act he may appoint such assistant or assistants as he may deem necessary to act for him under his direction, and, with the approval of the governor and council, he shall fix their compensation. In all criminal proceedings instituted under this act the attorney general may require district attorneys to assist him and to act for him In their respective districts, and in all matters so referred to them the

district attorneys shall be under the jurisdiction and direction of the attorney general.

SEC. 2. To carry out the provisions of this act the attorney general, with the consent of the governor and council, may expend a sum not exceeding $5,000 from the treasury of the Commonwealth.

SEC. 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

Approved, May 28, 1913.

COURT DECISIONS.

Gloucester Isinglass & Glue Co. v. Russia Cement Co. (154 Mass., 92). Opinion of the justices on the law of 1912 (211 Mass., 620). United Shoe Machinery Co. v. La Chapelle (212 Mass., 467).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

THE EVILS OF CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE (MASSACHUSETTS, 1837). The unreasonableness of contracts in restraint of trade and business is very apparent from several obvious considerations:

(1) Such contracts injure the parties making them, because they diminish their means of procuring livelihoods and a competency for their families. They tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions, and they expose such persons to imposition and oppression.

(2) They tend to deprive the public of the services of men in the employments and capacities in which they may be most useful to the community as well as themselves.

(3) They discourage industry and enterprise and diminish the products of ingenuity and skill.

(4) They prevent competition and enhance prices.

(5) They expose the public to all the evils of monopoly; and this especially is applicable to wealthy companies and large corporations who have the means, unless restrained by law, to exclude rivalry, monopolize business, and engross the market. Against evils like these wise laws protect individuals and the public by declaring all such contracts void. (Alger v. Thacker, 19 Pick., Mass., 51.)

AN AGREEMENT NOT TO MANUFACTURE FIRE ALARMS (MASSACHUSETTS, 1893).

An inventor and manufacturer of fire-alarm apparatus sold his machinery, stock, business, and patents to another person and agreed not to engage in such business and not to enter into competition with the purchaser, either directly or indirectly, for a period of 10 years. The court held the agreement good as regards the letters patent and the improvements which the inventor agreed to convey; but it was void in so far as it purported to bind the inventor not to manufacture or sell fire alarms under other patents or under no patents. (Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Crane, 160 Mass., 50.)

AGREEMENT OF BED-QUILT MANUFACTURER NOT TO SELL UNLIMITED AS TO SPACE (MASSACHUSETTS, 1888).

A manufacturer of bed quilts and comfortables conveyed to defendant his entire business and agreed not to engage in such business for five years. The court held that this was clearly illegal and void as being in restraint of trade, because not limited as to space. (Bishop v. Palmer, 146 Mass., 469.)

CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AT COMMON LAW-AGREEMENT NOT TO RUN A STAGE ON A CERTAIN ROAD UNDER PENALTY (MASSACHUSETTS, 1811).

A man ran a stage on the road between Boston and Providence. A rival contemplated setting up a stage on the same road. The man who was running the stage sold his stagecoach and horse to his rival and entered into a bond not to run the stage on such road under a certain penalty. The court held the bond void, and said:

"If it does not appear whether the contract was or was not made on good consideration, so that the contract may be either good or bad, it is the prima facie presumption of law that the contract is bad, because it is to the prejudice of trade and honest industry, because the mischief to one party is apparent, and the benefit only presumptive, and because the apparent mischief is not merely private but also publie. Therefore all contracts barely in restraint of trade where no consideration is shown are bad. (Pierce v. Fuller, 8 Mass., 222.) THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DECREE OF THE GOVERNMENT SUIT.

A remarkable situation prevailed when the Government won its suits against the Standard Oil Co. and the Tobacco Trust. In these cases the Supreme Court of the United States found unanimously, without a dissenting voice, that acts had been