14 NOR 
H S.-H 0: RE 
BREEZE 
Ohe Crusts, the People, amd the Square Deal 
AN EDITORIAL BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT IN ‘‘THE OUTLOOK’ OF NOV. 18 
The suit against the Steel Trust 
by the Government has brought 
vividly before our people the need 
of reducing to order our chaotic 
Government policy as regards busi- 
ness. As President, in Messages to 
Congress I repeatedly called the at- 
tention of that body and of the pub- 
he to the inadequacy of the Anti- 
Trust Law by itself to meet business 
conditions and secure justice to the 
people, and to the further fact that 
it might, if left unsupplemented by 
additional legislation, work mis- 
chief, with no compensating advan- 
tage; and I urged as strongly as I 
knew how that the policy followed 
with relation to railways in connec- 
tion with the Inter-State Commerce 
Law should be followed by the Na- 
tional Government as regards all 
ereat business concerns; and there- 
fore that, as a first step, the powers 
of the Bureau of Corporations 
should be greatly enlarged, or else 
that there should be created a Gov- 
ernmental board or commission, 
with powers somewhat similar to 
those of the Inter-State Commerce 
Commission, but covering the whole 
field of inter-State business, ex- 
elusive of transportation (which 
should, by law, be kept wholly sep- 
arate from ordinary industrial busi- 
ness, all common ownership of the 
industry and the railway being for- 
bidden). In the end I have always 
believed that it would also be neces- 
sary to give the National Govern- 
ment complete power over the or- 
ganization and capitalization of all 
business concerns engaged in inter- 
State commerce. 
A member of my Cabinet with 
whom even more than with the var- 
ious Attorneys-General, I went over 
every detail of this trust situation, 
was the one time Secretary of the 
Interior, Mr. James R. Garfield. He 
writes me as follows concerning the 
suit against the Steel Corporation: 
Nothing appeared before’ the 
House Committee that made me be- 
lieve we were deceived by Judge 
Gary. 
This, I think. is a ease that shows 
elearly the difference between des- 
truetive litigation and constructive 
legislation. I have not yet seen a 
full copy of the Government’s peti- 
tion, but our papers give nothing 
that indicates any kind of unfair or 
dishonest competition such as ex- 
isted in both the Standard Oil and 
Tobacco Cases. As I understand it, 
the competitors of the Steel Com- 
pany have steadily increased in 
strength during the last six or seven 
years. Furthermore, the percent of 
the business done by the Steel Cor- 
poration has decreased during that 
time. As you will remember, at our 
first conference with Judge Gary, 
the Judge stated. that it was the de- 
sire and purpose of the Company to 
conform to what the Government 
wished, it being the purpose of the 
Company absolutely to obey the law 
both in spirit and letter. Through- 
out the time that I had charge of 
the investigation, and while we were 
in Washington, I do not know of a 
single instance where the Steel Com- 
pany refused any information re- 
quested; but, on the contrary, aided 
in every ‘possible way our investiga- 
tion. 
The position now taken by the 
Government is absolutely destruc- 
tive of legitimate business, because 
they outline no rule of conduct for 
business of any magnitude. It is 
absurd to say that the courts can lay 
down such rules. The most the 
courts can do is to find as legal or 
illegal the particular transactions 
brought before them: Hence, after 
years of tedious litigation there 
would be no clear-cut rule for fu- 
ture action. This method of pro- 
cedure is dealing with the device, 
not the result, and drives business 
to the elaboration of clever devices, 
each of which must be tested in the 
courts. 
I have yet to find a better method 
of dealing with the anti-trust situa- 
tion than that suggested by the bill 
which we agreed upon in the last 
days of your Administration. That 
bill should be used as a basis for 
legislation, and there could be in- 
ecorporated upon it whatever may 
be determined wise regarding the 
direct control and supervision of 
the National Government, either 
through a commission similar to the 
Inter-State Commerce Commission 
or otherwise. 
Before taking up the matter in its 
large aspect, I wish to say one word 
as to one feature of the Government 
suit against the Steel Corporation. 
One of the grounds for the suit is 
the acquisition by the Steel Corpo- 
ration of the Tennessee: Coal and 
Iron Company; and it has been al- 
leged, on the authority of the Goy- 
ernment officials engaged in carrying 
on the suit, that as regards this 
transaction I was misled by the rep- 
resentatives of the Steel Corpora- 
tion, and that the facts were not ac- 
curately or truthfully laid before 
me. This statement is not correct. 
I believed at the time that the facts 
in the case were as represented to 
me on behalf of the Steel Corpora- 
tion, and my further knowledge has 
convinced me that this was true. I 
believed at the time that the repre- 
sentatives of the Steel Corporation 
told me the truth as to the change 
that would be worked in the percen- 
tage of the business which the pro- 
posed acquisition would give the 
Steel Corporation, and further in-- 
quiry has convinced me that they 
did so. J was not misled. The rep- 
resentatives of the Steel Corpora- 
tion told me the truth as to what the 
effect of the action at that time 
would be, and any statement that I 
was misled or that the representa- 
tives of the Steel Corporation did 
not thus tell me the truth as to the 
facts of the case is itself not in ae- 
cordance with the truth. In The 
Outlook of August 19 last I gave in 
full the statement I had made to the 
Investigating Committee of the 
House of Representatives on this 
matter. That statement is accurate, 
and I reaffirm everything I therein 
said, not only as to what occurred, 
but also as to my belief in the wis- 
dom and propriety of my action— 
indeed, the action not merely was 
wise and proper, but it would have 
been a calamity from every stand- 
point had I failed to take it. On 
page 137 of the printed report of 
the testimony before the Committee 
will be found Judge Gary’s account 
of the meeting between himself and 
Mr. Frick and Mr. Root and myself. 
This account states the facts accur- 
ately. It has been alleged that the 
purchase bv the Steel Corporation of 
the property of the Tennessee Coal 
and Iron Company gave the Steel 
Corporation practically a monopoly 
of the Southern iron ores—that 1s, 
. 
