JANTJABT 8, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



45 



domestic eommeree, is quite unsatisfactory 

 when applied to imports from abroad, and 

 that despite the very real help to be ex- 

 pected from the new trade commission. 



The trouble lies partly in the inherent 

 difficulty of the subject and partly in the 

 inadequacy or ambiguity of previous legis- 

 lation. First of all, our anti-trust laws can 

 have no extra-territorial force. Cartels 

 and trusts that would be invalid here are 

 lawful abroad, and in so far as these 

 operate on their own soil, even to our detri- 

 ment, the individuals concerned can with 

 difficulty be reached so long as the acts done 

 are lawful in the country where they are 

 done. But these unfair practises must ex- 

 press themselves in imports into this coun- 

 try, and this implies the existence of im- 

 porters or agents who must either be, or 

 occasionally come, within the jurisdiction 

 of our laws. 



And so we find in 1894 our Congress 

 partially legislated on this very subject, 

 and by the anti-trust sections of the Wilson 

 tariff law (sees. 73-77) visited upon im- 

 porters who should combine in importing 

 to restrain trade in this country all the 

 pains and penalties of the Sherman law 

 of 1890, namely, fines, imprisonment, for- 

 feiture of goods in transit, triple damages, 

 injunction and dissolution. 



But this Wilson bill, which may well 

 be deemed to be the exclusive expression 

 of congressional purpose on this subject 

 of imports, is confined to restraint of trade 

 by two or more — and it does not, like the 

 Sherman law, prohibit monopolizing, nor 

 acts done by one person or corporation 

 alone, nor does it prohibit unfair methods 

 as such. 



Now the unfair methods here complained 

 of are precisely those which tend to monop- 

 oly by the destruction of competitors, and 

 they can as well be employed by a single 

 powerful concern as by a combination. 



Viewed merely as "unfair methods," it 

 is probable that they would not have been 

 held by the courts to have fallen under the 

 Sherman law so long ago as 1894; but 

 would have been classed among those acts 

 which the Supreme Court has lately char- 

 acterized as "no more than ordinary acts 

 of competition or the small dishonesties 

 of trade. ' ' 



But in the last few years ideas on this 

 subject have undergone a complete change, 

 and many methods formerly thought legit- 

 imate have passed under the ban of the 

 law. Railway rebates are a notable ex- 

 ample of this ; and now with the legislation 

 of this year we find legislative authority 

 for the condemnation of unfair methods of 

 competition generally, and notably dis- 

 crimination in prices with intent to injure. 



Admirable as are these provisions, there 

 is nothing in the new statutes which extends 

 their scope by way of amendment to the 

 Wilson bill and to imports — and there is 

 much to indicate the legislative intent to 

 confine those provisions to domestic com- 

 merce alone. The word "commerce" both 

 in the unfair methods clause (sec. 5, com- 

 mission bill) and in the price discrimina- 

 tion clause (sec. 2, Clayton bill) is de- 

 fined as commerce among the states or be- 

 tween this country and a foreign country, 

 and this definition excludes the idea of its 

 including also commerce within a foreign 

 country. 



The practises that we complain of involve 

 commerce not in the restricted sense as de- 

 fined, but a commerce that includes foreign 

 countries as well as our own. But if these 

 practises of foreigners and importers are 

 nevertheless to be deemed unfair methods 

 within the commission bill (see. 5), the 

 only remedy for them is an order of the 

 trade commission to desist. They are not 

 expressly prohibited by the act itself, nor 

 made punishable in any way. If, however. 



