THE TRUST PROBLEM RESTUDIED 59
impute to the president designs flagrantly illegal and intolerable. Discrimination in legislation is denounced as unjust ; discrimina- tion in applying or enforcing law is far more vicious and inex- cusable. The president cannot be expected to prosecute alleged trusts where the evidence is insufficient, but he is expected to investigate and make honest effort to obtain evidence in any case where there is reasonable ground for suspecting monopolistic abuse or oppression.
So much in reply to counsel-darkening sophistry and Bed- lamite reasoning. But the question arises : What is likely to be the effect of the renewed agitation ? The president has nothing to do with possible, probable, or certain effects of a law, but Congress has to do with all that, for it determines the policy of the government. And as Congress is supposed to carry out the will of the people, it is important to inquire whether the popular notions as regards trusts and monopolies have undergone any material modification since the enactment of the Sherman law. If they have, then what settlement of the question do the people now favor? If they are at sea, perplexed, dubious, and anxious for light and guidance, what do the "schools," the thinkers and reformers, have to offer them ?
The fact is that the average man and the average "practical politician" are helpless and hopeless in the presence of the complex and difficult trust question. Ten years ago the solution seemed exceedingly simple : abolish trusts by law. Radically restrictive acts were the order of the day. All combinations, contracts, and agreements in restraint of trade or competition were made illegal. Construing the federal anti-trust law, the Supreme Court held that even reasonable restraint of commerce was contrary to public policy. A number of combinations and pools have been dissolved by the federal and state authorities, but have these successful prosecutions had any discouraging effect on the trust movement ? The answer is familiar to all.
In 1898 a relatively harmless traffic association was declared to be unlawful. A year or so later another railroad association was ordered by the Supreme Court to go out of existence. But did greater competition follow in the railway sphere ? The
