Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
May,  19 17.  J 
The  Price  of  Gasoline. 
227 
2.  Abolition,  by  legislation,  in  certain  cases,  of  common  stock 
ownership  in  corporations  which  have  been  members  of  a  combi- 
nation dissolved  under  the  Sherman  Law. 
3.  Effective  limitation  upon  common  ownership  of  stock  in  poten- 
tially competitive  corporations  by  withdrawing  the  power  of  voting 
and  control. 
4.  Legislation  which,  while  recognizing  common  ownership, 
would  fix  upon  such  common  owners  the  responsibility  for  the  acts 
of  each  of  the  several  companies  so  owned,  which  prevent  com- 
petition. 
As  to  1. — It  is  suggested  that  there  be  added  to  paragraph  (c) 
of  Section  6  of  the  Trade  Commission  Act  a  proviso  to  cover  all 
cases  in  antitrust  suits  where  there  apparently  has  been  a  technical 
compliance  with  the  decree  but  in  which  for  any  reason  the  decree 
has  not  been  effective.  Such  law  should  provide  generally  that  in 
any  case  where  the  findings  of  the  Trade  Commission  reveal  no  such 
violation  of  the  decree  as  would  constitute  a  ground  for  contempt 
proceedings,  but  which  show  that  the  decree  has  failed  to  bring  about 
competitive  conditions,  the  Attorney  General  shall  have  power  and 
it  shall  be  his  duty  to  embody  such  findings  and  recommendations  in 
a  bill  of  review  to  be  filed  in  the  court  entering  the  decree ;  and  such 
law  should  further  provide  that  upon  the  filing  of  such  bill  of  re- 
view the  court  shall  reopen  the  suit  and  take  further  testimony  touch- 
ing the  efficacy  of  the  decree  in  bringing  about  competitive  conditions. 
The  findings  of  the  Trade  Commission  should  be  made  admissible 
as  evidence.  Such  law  should  further  provide  that  on  proof  the 
court  shall  have  power  to  amplify  and  modify  the  decree  in  such 
manner  as  may  be  necessary  fully  to  restore  competitive  conditions. 
As  to  2, — It  is  suggested  that  the  evils  growing  Out  of  common 
ownership  may  be  successfully  prevented  by  legislation  declaring 
it  to  be  unlawful  for  any  person  to  own,  directly  or  indirectly,  shares 
of  stock  in  more  than  one  of  the  companies  into  which  a  combination 
in  the  form  of  holding  company  or  consolidated  corporation  (except 
railroad  combinations)  has  been  dissolved  under  the  Sherman  law, 
whenever  such  companies  are  engaged  in  the  same  line  of  commerce. 
In  other  words,  to  enact  into  law  the  doctrine  as  to  diverse  owner- 
ship of  competing  corporations  which  has  been  laid  down  by  the 
courts  in  the  Union  Pacific,  Reading,  and  other  recent  cases. 
As  to  5. — It  is  suggested  that  instead  of  forbidding  absolutely 
common  ownership,  the  same  effect  may  probably  be  reached  by 
