though they increase profits, they also reduce prices, and this may benefit the public. It must be remembered, however, that a reduction of prices to the people is not one of the real objects of these organizations, nor is their tendency necessarily in that direction. If it occurs in a particular case, it is only because it accords with the purposes or interests of those managing the scheme.

He then went on to deplore the inefficiency of the present law,' which as interpreted by the courts did not reach the evil at all. Indeed, he declared it to be his opinion that, on account of the complexities of our political system, the federal government was powerless to control them in an effective manner. For this, he said, we must look to the states, and he expressed great confidence in the ability and willingness of the states to remedy such evils as might exist."

In his first two years, President McKinley was occupied so fully with matters of foreign policy that he did not undertake an inquiry into the industrial situation. So that it was not until his message of Dec. 5, 1899, that he called attention to the great increase in the number of industrial combinations, and stated that President Cleveland had regretted the failure of Congress to stop this evil. Mr. Cleveland, he went on to say, had trusted to the states to regulate and control these combinations, but, on account of the evident failure of this policy to accomplish the beneficial results hoped for, Mr. McKinley deemed it the duty of Congress to extend the present law, and recommended action to that effect.

'During President Cleveland's administration were instituted four bills in equity, two indictments, and two informations for contempt, under the Sherman Act. See The Sherman Anti-trust Act, published by the Dept. of Justice, July 1, 1912.

In his last message, of December, 1900, he merely repeated his former recommendation, and added: "Restraint upon such combinations as are injurious, and which are within federal jurisdiction, should be promptly applied by the Congress.'

Mr. Joseph McKenna, the Attorney-General in 1897, simply mentioned "a very important decision" that of the United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association.

His successor, Mr. Griggs, in his report of Nov. 30, 1898, likewise only mentioned under his important decisions, that of the United States v. Joint Traffic Association. In the following year, 1899, after reviewing the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, he continued that he "occasionally" received applications to bring suits. "Such actions can be maintained only when the offense comes within the scope of a federal statute." And in the course of his discussion, he added:

"In every instance, therefore, where resort is sought to federal jurisdiction against combinations in restraint of trade, the first question to be decided is, what kind of trade is affected?" This must be interstate commerce; not state commerce and not production or manufacture, "but that composite transaction known as commerce, which involves the buying, selling and exchange of commodities, and their transportation and delivery."

There is no question of the right and power of every state to make and enforce laws in restraint of monopoly; that is the normal and proper sphere of state autonomy; while the United States, not having been formed as a government for the regulation of the internal affairs and businesses of the

1 During President McKinley's administration were instituted three bills in equity, under the Sherman Act. See The Sherman Anti-trust Act, published by the Dept. of Justice, July 1, 1912.

states, is limited in its authority to the regulation of that kind of business described as commerce between the states and with foreign nations.

In all instances the Department has been governed only by a sincere desire to enforce the law as it exists and to avoid subjecting the government to useless expense and the law officers of the government to humiliating defeat by bringing actions where there was a clear want of jurisdiction.

Consequently, whatever might be the evils of combinations,

All these things are done by virtue of the appropriate and constitutional authority of the several states under state law and except where they invade the territory of Congressional jurisdiction by interfering with interstate and international commerce in a direct manner, they are subject and subordinate to the restraint and control of the individual states where they are carried on.

And in his report of 1900, he undertook no further discussion of the act.

In his first two messages, President Roosevelt confined himself to rather narrow limits. In his first message, in December, 1901,' after pointing out the great problem which was presented by the recent growth of consolidations, he said:

The first essential in determining how to deal with the great industrial combinations is knowledge of the facts-publicity. ... Publicity is the only sure remedy which we can now invoke. What further remedies are needed in the way of governmental regulation, or taxation, can only be determined after publicity has been obtained, by process of law, and in the course of administration. The first requisite is knowledge,

157th Congress, Ist session.

full and complete-knowledge which may be made public to the world.

And in his second message, in December, 1902, he reiterated this recommendation. "The experience of the past year has emphasized, in my opinion, the desirability of the steps I then proposed. . . . Publicity can do no harm to the honest corporation; and we need not be overtender about sparing the dishonest corporation."

In the next year, December, 1903,' President Roosevelt congratulated Congress on its achievements in creating the Bureau of Corporations, and on passing the expediting act.

The scope of the Department's duty and authority embraces the commercial and industrial interests of the nation. It is not designed to restrict or control the fullest liberty of legitimate business action, but to secure exact and authentic information which will aid the Executive in enforcing existing laws, and which will enable the Congress to enact additional legislation, if any should be found necessary, in order to prevent the few from obtaining privileges at the expense of diminished opportunities for the many.

Then, coming to the Bureau of Corporations, he said: "Publicity in corporate affairs will tend to do away with ignorance, and will afford facts upon which intelligent action may be taken." And further: "The purpose of this Bureau is not to embarass or assail legitimate business, but to aid in bringing about a better industrial condition." And in this connection, he remarked:

The legislation was moderate. It was characterized throughout by the idea that we were not attacking corporations, but endeavoring to provide for doing away with any evil in them;

158th Congress, 2nd session.

that we drew the line against misconduct, not against wealth; gladly recognizing the great good done by the capitalist who alone, or in conjunction with his fellows, does his work along proper and legitimate lines. The purpose of the legislation was to favor such a man when he does well, and to supervise his action only to prevent him from doing ill. can do no harm to the honest corporation.

...

Publicity

Turning to a discussion of the general policy of the government on capital and labor, he said:

The consistent policy of the national government, so far as it has the power, is to hold in check the unscrupulous man, whether employer or employee; but to refuse to weaken individual initiative or to hamper or cramp the industrial development of the country. We recognize that this is an era of federation and combination, in which great capitalistic corporations and labor unions have become factors of tremendous importance in all industrial centers.

And reiterating that the government would pay attention only to one fact-"the question whether or not the conduct of the individual or aggregate of individuals is in accordance with the law of the land," he concluded, "we have cause as a nation to be thankful for the steps that have been so successfully taken to put these principles into effect." Throughout this veritable paean of victory, Mr. Roosevelt appeared to consider that the trust question was, for the time being at least, well in hand. Any further slight changes, he thought, would be easily put through. The whole tone of the message indicates that at this time, Mr. Roosevelt considered the trust problem virtually, if not completely, settled.

In his annual reports, Attorney-General Knox made no mention of the trust question during these years, other than, in 1903, to suggest that the appropriation of