The Policy of Compulsory Competition est, but to help in the wise solution of a problem of equal concern to the entire community. The writers are almost unanimous in recognizing that the era of unre stricted competition has passed. Some of them denounce the Sherman law in uncompromising terms, and those who do not attack it complain of the evil of its vagueness and negativity. There are signs of a strong sentiment in favor of administrative control by the federal Government as the most desirable means of dealing with the problem. The plan of regulation by a commission, favored by Judge Gary, Colonel Roosevelt, and others, thus seems to have been received with more sympathy than was looked for from a considerable part of the busi ness community. Of these writers, one group looks upon the Sherman act as an unmiti gated evil and danger, in need of repeal or radical amendment. Thus Charles G. Dawes, president of the Central Trust Company of St. Louis, speaks of "the inefficiency and inutility" of the law, and the need of business men turn ing their thoughts to "legislation which will be forward and not backward"; E. C. Simmons, president of the Sim mons Hardware Company of St. Louis, thinks the Sherman law "the worst and most dangerous business legisla tion that has ever been put into the United States statutes," and that it should make way at once for a law so plain that everybody can understand it; and William L. Douglas, the Massa chusetts shoe manufacturer, "does not believe we have any use for the Sherman law," which has been "a menace to business ever since prosecutions under it were begun." In place of the Sherman act, Mr. Dawes would like regulation by an unofficial tribunal of business men,
19
which would pass on the relation to the public interest of proposed agreements in restraint of trade, from the decision of which tribunal there shall be a right of appeal to the courts in regard to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of such an agreement. Mr. Douglas would establish a system of federal licensing of interstate business, the law requiring all capital to be paid up in full, and providing for a system of visi tation and examination of corporations similar to that existing under the na tional bank act. To this group also belongs Henry L. Higginson, the eminent Boston banker. He declares that the Sherman act "is not now being interpreted in the sense which Senators Edmunds and Hoar, who wrote it, meant that it should be." He thinks that the law has been spoiled by a destructive interpretation, and that Congress should busy itself by formulating a constructive statute. "Combinations are essential." He thinks that business might well be regu lated by a commerce court or commis sion. "As our country is constituted a monopoly hardly exists; if it does exist the common law will take care of it, and we need no Sherman law for such purpose." Another group of these businessmen considers the Sherman act harmless in so far as it may be possible to over come its mischief by judicial construc tion, slight amendments, or a change in administrative methods. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, considers that "we are trying to regu late creative work under a purely nega tive statute," and he would provide a supplement to it in the form of a broad, constructive measure. Theodore P. Shonts, president of the InterboroughMetropolitan Railway Company of New York, believes that "the statute as now
