Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:40:11.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Progressivism: Louis Brandeis, Democracy and the Corporation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Philip Cullis
Philip Cullis
Affiliation:
Lecturer in History, University of Edinburgh, William Robertson Building, Edinburgh EH8 9JY, Scotland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Progressive movement's confrontation with big business was dominated by a paradox. Reformers constantly warned about large corporations, denouncing their capacity to abuse workers, cheat consumers, brutalise competitors and undermine the democratic system. But, despite such rhetoric, the movement did little to diminish the social, political and economic power of big business. This discrepancy has, of course, attracted many historians' attention. For some, Progressivism's “failure” stemmed from reformers' ambivalent attitude towards big business and industrialisation: while angry about the malignant results of big business, Progressives agreed that any campaign to reverse the process of industrialisation would be futile and potentially harmful. For New Left historians, such as Gabrial Kolko, Martin Sklar and James Weinstein, the explanation for the shortcomings of Progressivism is even more straightforward. They claim that, despite their disingenuous declarations in favour of democracy and equality, most Progressive leaders never intended to challenge the power of America's corporate elite.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 381 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Knopf, 1955), 244–254Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard L., “Progressivism: A Contemporary Reassessment,” in McCormick, , The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 286Google Scholar.

2 See Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York: The Free Press, 1963), passimGoogle Scholar; Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State (Boston: Beacon, 1968), 62–91, 139–171Google Scholar; Sklar, Martin, “Woodrow Wilson and the Political Economy of Modern United States Liberalism,” Studies on the Left, 1 (1960)Google Scholar — reprinted in Sklar, Martin, The United States as a Developing Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sklar, Martin, The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), passimGoogle Scholar.

3 Between 1909 and 1919 there was no significant diminution in industrial concentration. See Chandler, Alfred, “The Structure of American Industry in the Twentieth Century: A Historical Overview,” Business History Review, 43 (1969), 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For details of Brandeis' career, see Mason, Alpheus Thomas, Brandeis: A Free Man's Life (New York: Viking Press, 1946)Google Scholar; Strum, Philippa, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urofsky, Melvin, Louis D. Brandeis and the Progressive Tradition (Boston: Little Brown, 1981)Google Scholar; Paper, Lewis, Brandeis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983)Google Scholar; Baskerville, Stephen, Of Laws and Limitations: An Intellectual Portrait of Louis Dembitz Brandeis (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

5 See, for instance, Mason, , Brandeis, 351–362Google Scholar; Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 147–153Google Scholar.

6 Abrams, Richard, “Brandeis and the New Haven-Boston & Maine Merger Battle Revisited,” Business History Review, 36 (1962), 408–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCraw, Thomas, “Louis D. Brandeis Reappraised,” American Scholar, 54 (1985), 525–536Google Scholar: quotes at 527, 528; McCraw, Thomas, Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E. Kahn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 94–142Google Scholar; Adelstein, Richard P., “'Islands of Conscious Power': Louis D. Brandeis and the Modern Corporation,” Business History Review, 63 (1989), 631–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for instance, Mason, , Brandeis, 351–353, 399–402Google Scholar; Baskerville, , Of Laws and Limitations, 183Google Scholar; Adelstein, “‘Islands of Conscious Power,’” 642–646; McCraw, , Prophets of Regulation, 108–109, 111Google Scholar. However, in her biography of Brandeis, Philippa Strum emphasises Brandeis' support for action against unfair practices, rather than radical trust-busting. See Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 146–148Google Scholar.

8 See, in particular, Brandeis, Louis, “Trusts and Efficiency,” Colliers Weekly (14 09 1912)Google Scholar – reprinted in Brandeis, , Business — A Profession [1914] (Boston: Hale, Cushman and Flint, 1933), 223–224Google Scholar; Brandeis, Louis, “Competition,” American Legal News, 44 (01 1913)Google Scholar — reprinted in Pollack, Ervin, ed., The Brandeis Reader (New York: Oceana, 1956), 177–180Google Scholar.

9 See, for instance, “Testimony of Louis Brandeis,” House Committee on Investigation of the United States Steel Corporation, Hearings, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, 29–30 01 1912, 2835–2872Google Scholar; “Testimony of Louis Brandeis,” Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings on the Control of Corporations, Persons and Firms Engaged in Interstate Commerce, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, 14–16 12 1911, 1151–1156Google Scholar (hereafter Senate Hearings (1911)).

10 Brandeis, Louis, Other People's Money — And how the Bankers Use it (New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1914), 48Google Scholar. Brandeis was quoting from the Pujo Committee's report on the concentration of financial power.

11 Brandeis, , “Cutthroat Prices: The Competition that Kills,” Harper's Weekly, 58 (15 11 1913), 12Google Scholar. See also Brandeis, Louis, “The Solution to the Trust Problem,” Harper's Weekly, 58 (8 11 1913), 18Google Scholar; Brandeis, Louis, “Protect Law Abiding Business,” LaFollette's Weekly (27 01 1913), 68Google Scholar.

12 Brandeis, , “Competition,” in Pollack, , ed., The Brandeis Reader, 175Google Scholar.

13 ibid., 176; Brandeis, , “Trusts and Efficiency,” in Brandeis, , Business — A Profession, 217–218Google Scholar.

14 “Testimony of Louis Brandeis,” House Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings on Trust Legislation, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, 25 02 1914, 922–953Google Scholar; Brandeis to Woodrow Wilson (14 06 1913) in Urofsky, Melvin and Levy, David, eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1971–1978), vol. 3, 114Google Scholar.

15 Brandeis to Edward Atkins Grozier (19 09 1911), in Urofsky, and Levy, , eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, vol. 2, 495Google Scholar; Brandeis, “Suggestions for Letter of Governor Wilson on Trusts” (30 Sept. 1912), ibid., 691–2.

16 “Testimony of Louis Brandeis,” House Committee on Patents, Oldfield Revision and Codification of the Patent Statutes, Hearings, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, 15 05 1912, 3–25Google Scholar; “Testimony of Louis Brandeis,” House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on Regulation of Prices, 64th Congress, 1st Session, 9 01 1915, 198–243Google Scholar.

17 See, for instance, Wilson, Woodrow, The New Freedom [1913] (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1961), 101–110Google Scholar; Wilson, , “A Campaign Address in Detroit” (19 09 1912), in Link, Arthur, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966–), vol. 25, 191–192Google Scholar. For Brandeis' influence over Wilson, see Urofsky, Melvin, “Wilson, Brandeis and the Trust Issue,” Mid-America, 49 (1967), 6–14Google Scholar.

18 Rublee, George, “The Original Plan and Early History of the Federal Trade Commission,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 11 (1926), 667–669Google Scholar.

19 Brandeis, Louis, “Shall We Abandon the Policy of Competition?” Case and Comment, 18 (02 1912)Google Scholar — reprinted in Fraenkel, Osmond, ed., The Curse of Bigness: The Miscellaneous Writings of Louis D. Brandeis (New York: Viking Press, 1934), 104Google Scholar; Senate Hearings (1911), 1170, 1235–6Google Scholar; quote at 1170.

20 Lloyd, Henry Demarest, Wealth Against Commonwealth (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1894)Google Scholar; Tarbell, Ida, The History of Standard Oil (New York: Macmillan, 1904)Google Scholar. For the influence of Tarbell's work see Hidy, R. E. & Hidy, M. E., Pioneering in Big Business, 1882–1901 (New York: Harper, 1955), 652Google Scholar.

21 Kales, Albert, “Good and Bad Trusts,” Harvard Law Review, 30 (1917), 871CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Croly, Herbert, The Promise of American Life (New York: Macmillan, 1909), 108–115Google Scholar; Weyl, Walter, The New Democracy (New York, Macmillan, 1912), 86–87, 140Google Scholar.

23 Stevens, Williams, “Unfair Competition,” Political Science Quarterly, 29 (1914), 282–306, 460–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stevens, William, Unfair Competition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917)Google Scholar.

24 See, for example, Stevens, William, “Resale Price Maintenance,” Columbia Law Review, 19 (1919) 271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 As one writer has observed, agreement on this issue was “well-nigh universal.” See Klebaner, Benjamin, “Potential Competition and the American Antitrust Legislation of 1914,” Business History Review, 38 (1964), 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Stevens, Williams, “A Group of Trusts and Combinations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 26 (1912), 642CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seager, Henry, “The Recent Trust Decisions,” Political Science Quarterly, 26 (1911), 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Clark, John Bates, The Control of Trusts; An Argument in Favor of Controlling the Trusts by a Natural Method (New York: Macmillan, 1901), 14Google Scholar. See also Young, Allyn, “The Sherman Act and the New Antitrust Legislation I,” Journal of Political Economy, 23 (1915), 204Google Scholar; Klebaner, “Potential Competition,” 163–185.

28 George Rublee, “Memorandum Concerning Section 5 of the Bill to Create a Federal Trade Commission” (enclosed with letter to Wilson from Franklin Lane (10 July 1914)), Series 2, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Library of Congress (Microfilm Edition), 22.

29 “Conference Report on H.R.15613 to Establish an Interstate Trade Commission” (10 09 1914), Congressional Record, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, 14924Google Scholar.

30 Quoted in Coletta, Paolo, The Presidency of William Howard Taft (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1973), 164Google Scholar.

31 See Link, Arthur, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (New York: Harper, 1954), 18–22Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard, “What Happened to the Antitrust Movement?” in Hofstadter, , The Paranoid Style in American Politics (London: Jonathan Cape, 1966), 201–204Google Scholar; Goldman, Eric, Rendezvous with Destiny (New York: Knopf, 1952), 208–216Google Scholar.

32 Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Trusts, the People and the Square Deal,” Outlook, 99 (18 11 1911)Google Scholar, reprinted in Rozwenc, Edwin, ed., Roosevelt, Wilson and the Trusts (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1967), 49Google Scholar; Roosevelt, Theodore, “Address Delivered at Banquet in Milwaukee, 3 April 1903,” quoted in Roosevelt, Theodore, The Roosevelt Policy: Speeches, Letters and State Papers, Relating to Corporate Wealth and Closely Allied Topics [1919] (New York: Kraus Reprints, 1971), 114–116Google Scholar; Roosevelt, Theodore, “Seventh Annual Message” (3 12 1907), in Israel, Fred, ed., The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents, 1790–1966 (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1967), vol. 3, 2249Google Scholar.

33 Harbaugh, William Henry, The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt [1961] (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 421Google Scholar; Davidson, John Wells, ed., A Crossroads of Freedom: The 1912 Campaign Speeches of Woodrow Wilson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956), 480Google Scholar.

34 In particular, members of the Progressive National Committee called for the creation of a commission that would attack the “bases of monopolistic power.” See “Testimony of William Draper Lewis,” House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on Interstate Trade Commission, 63 rd Congress, 2nd Session, 11 02 1914, 241–259Google Scholar; “Testimony of Herbert Knox Smith,” ibid., 264–300; “Testimony of Donald Richberg,” House Committee on Judiciary, Hearings on Trust Legislation, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, 11 02 1914, 417–421Google Scholar.

35 Charles Van Hise, “Address in Emerson Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts” (14 Nov. 1911), reprinted in Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings on the Control of Corporations, Persons and Firms Engaged in Interstate Commerce, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, 2530; Roosevelt, , “The Trusts, the People and the Square Deal,” in Rozwence, , ed., Roosevelt, Wilson and the Trusts, 54Google Scholar.

36 See, for instance, Stevens, William, “The Trade Commission Act,” American Economic Review, 4 (1914), 854Google Scholar; Durand, Edward Dana, “The Trust Legislation of 1914,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 29 (1914), 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Bates Clark, letter to Francis Newlands (11 Feb. 1914), reprinted in Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hearings on Interstate Trade, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1056. Even supporters of Theodore Roosevelt welcomed the measure. Van Hise, for example, predicted that the Commission would be a “very powerful instrument” in stamping out monopolistic abuses. See Van Hise to Woodrow Wilson (5 Mar. 1914), Series 2, Woodrow Wilson Papers.

37 See Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction, 93–105Google Scholar; Hans, Thorelli, The Federal Antitrust Policy: Origination of an American Tradition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), 12Google Scholar.

38 United States v. Standard Oil Company et al., 221 U.S. 1 (1911). For an excellent account of the case, see Letwin, William, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act [1965] (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981), 256–265Google Scholar.

39 For judicial hostility to legislative reforms, see Horwitz, Morton, The transformation of American law, 1870–1960: the crisis of legal orthodoxy (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), passimGoogle Scholar. For Brandeis' respect for the law, see Baskerville, , Of Laws and Limitations, 142–147Google Scholar.

40 Lamoreaux, Naomi, The great merger movement in American business (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 155–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eichner, Alfred S., The Emergence of Oligopoly: Sugar Refining as a Case Study [1969] (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978), 215–216Google Scholar; Fligstein, Neil, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 83–86Google Scholar; Hidy, and Hidy, , Pioneering in Big Business, 468–471Google Scholar.

41 Gal, Allon, Brandeis of Boston (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), 173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCraw, “Louis D. Brandeis Reappraised,” 529.

42 For the performance of these combinations, see Lamoreaux, , The great merger movement in American business, 138–142Google Scholar.

43 For the influence of classical economics, see Baldwin, William Lee, Antitrust and the Changing Corporation (Durham: Duke University Press, 1961), 8–25Google Scholar.

44 Senate Hearings (1911): quotes at 1236, 1254–5, 1170, 1236.

45 For the moralistic, and specifically, Protestant dimension of Progressivism, see Crunden, Robert, Ministers of Reform: The Progressives' Achievement in American Civilisation, 1889–1920 (New York: Basic Books, 1982), passim.Google Scholar As Crunden notes (ibid., 277), Brandeis does not fit his typology of a Progressive. But Brandeis shared the moralistic approach of most Progressives, even if he did not share their Protestantism. See Abrams, Richard, Conservatism in a Progressive Era: Massachusetts, 1900–1912 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), 55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Senate Hearings (1911), 1167.

47 See Louis Brandeis, “The Democracy of Business” (Address before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 5 Feb. 1914), reprinted in Fraenkel, , ed., The Curse of Bigness, 140–142Google Scholar.

48 Brandeis, , “Suggestions for Letter of Governer Wilson on Trusts” (30 09 1912), in Urofsky, and Levy, , eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, vol. 2, 690–691Google Scholar.

49 Senate Hearings (1911), 1170.

50 ibid., 1234; Brandeis to Robert LaFollette (26 05 1911) in Urofsky, and Levy, , eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, vol. 2, p. 442Google Scholar; Brandeis, , “Memo on LaFollette Anti Trust Bill” (12 1911) in Link, , ed., The Papers ofWoodrow Wilson, vol. 25, 298Google Scholar; Senate Hearings (1911), 1174–5. The LaFollette-Stanley bill was less stringent than Brandeis' proposals, placing the limit at a market share of 40%.

51 ibid., 1175.

52 Kales, “Good and Bad Trusts,” 859.

53 See Brandeis, , “What to do about Capitalism,” enclosed with letter to Felix Frankfurter (30 09 1922), in Urofsky, and Levy, , eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, vol. 5, 67–68Google Scholar.

54 See, for instance, Clark, , The Control of Trusts, 70–74Google Scholar; Seager, Henry, “Government Regulation of Big Business in the Future,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 42 (1912), 241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bruce Wyman, “Unfair Competition by Monopolistic Corporations,” ibid., 73; Raymond, Robert, “The Federal Anti-trust Act,” Harvard Law Review, 23 (1910), 377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kales, “Good and Bad Trusts,” 834–843, 871–872; “Testimony of William Draper Lewis,” House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on Interstate Trade Commission, 63 rd Congress, 2nd Session, 11 02 1914, 243, 247–248Google Scholar; “Testimony of Donald Richberg,” House Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings on Trust Legislation, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, 11 02 1914, 417–419Google Scholar; Herbert Knox Smith, ibid., 423–27.

55 Wright, Chester, “The Trust Problem,” Journal of Political Economy, 20 (1912), 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Clark, , The Control of Trusts, 18Google Scholar; Kales, “Good and Bad Trusts,” 871.

56 Montague, Gilbert, “The Defects of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law,” Yale Law Journal, 19 (1909), 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also “Testimony of Herbert Knox Smith,” House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on Interstate Trade Commission, 63 rd Congress, 2nd Session, 11 02 1914, 299Google Scholar.

57 See Roosevelt, , “Seventh Annual Message,” in Israel, Fred, ed., State of the Union Messages, vol. 3, 2245–2249Google Scholar; Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Control of Corporations and 'The New Freedom,'” in Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography (New York: Macmillan, 1913), p. 624Google Scholar. Roosevelt's antitrust policies, including his faltering attempts to distinguish between good and bad trusts, are well-covered in Arthur Johnson, “Theodore Roosevelt and the Bureau of Corporations,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 45 (1959), 571–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, Arthur, “Antitrust Policy in Transition, 1908: Ideal and Reality,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 48 (1961), 415–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 See Taft, William Howard, The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York: Harper and Brothers 1914), 126–127Google Scholar. For Taft's antitrust programme, see Coletta, , The Presidency of William Howard Taft, 153–165Google Scholar; Sklar, , Corporate Reconstruction, 364–381Google Scholar.

59 “A News Report on an Address to the Reform Club of New York” (12 05 1912), in Link, , ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 24, 394Google Scholar; Diamond, William, The Economic Thought of Woodrow Wilson (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1943), 112Google Scholar.

60 Wilson, Woodrow, “Campaign Address in Madison Square Garden” (31 10 1912), in Link, , ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 25, 497Google Scholar; Diamond, , The Economic Thought of Woodrow Wilson, 107–108Google Scholar; Wilson, Woodrow, “Speech in Long Branch, New Jersey, accepting the Presidential Nomination” (2 09 1916), in Link, , ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 38, 129Google Scholar.

61 Seltzer, Alan, “Woodrow Wilson as Corporate–Liberal” Toward a Reconsideration of Left Revisionist Historiography,” Western Political Quarterly, 30 (1977), 196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Quoted in Young, Allyn, “The Sherman Act and the New Antitrust Legislation II,” Journal of Political Economy, 23 (1915) 306Google Scholar.

63 Martin, , Mergers and the Clayton Act, 49–54Google Scholar.

64 “Excerpt from the Diary of Colonel House” (2 10 1914), in Link, , ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 31, p. 122Google Scholar. See also Link, , Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Eva, 72–73Google Scholar.

65 See Martin, , Mergers and the Clayton Act, 104–150Google Scholar; Neale, A. D. & Goyder, D. G., The Antitrust Laws of the U.S.A. (3rd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 183–185Google Scholar.

66 United States v. United States Steel Corporation, 251 U.S. 417 (1920).

67 See, for instance, Brandeis, ' reference to the decision in Bedford Cut Stone v. Journeymen Cutters' Association (1927)Google Scholar, quoted in Mason, , Brandeis, 546Google Scholar.

68 Wyman, Bruce, Control of the Market — A Legal Solution to the Trust Problem (New York: Moffat, Yard and Co., 1911), 264Google Scholar. See also Raymond, Robert, “The Standard Oil and Tobacco Cases,” Harvard Law Review, 25 (1911), 31–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kales, “Good and Bad Trusts,” 830–854; Kales, Albert, “The Sherman Act,” Harvard Law Review, 31 (1918), 421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stevens, “A Group of Trusts and Combinations,” 642–643.

69 Quoted in Martin, , Mergers and the Clayton Act, 27Google Scholar. See also Taft, , The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court, 87–96, 113–115Google Scholar; Letwin, , Law and Economic Policy, 266–267Google Scholar.

70 Roosevelt, , “The Trusts, the People and the Square Deal,” in Rozwenc, , ed., Roosevelt, Wilson and the Trusts, 47–52Google Scholar.

71 Brandeis to Edwin Atkins Grozier (19 09 1911) in Urofsky, and Levy, , eds., The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, vol. 2, 495–6Google Scholar; Brandeis, “Suggestions for Letter of Governor Wilson on Trusts” (30 Sept. 1912), in ibid., 689–690.

72 “A News Report of an Address to the Reform Club of New York” (12 05 1912), in Link, , ed. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 24, 394Google Scholar.

73 “Remarks at a Press Conference” (12 03 1914), in Link, , ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 29, 335Google Scholar. For the Democratic leadership in Congress, see Bringhurst, Bruce, Antitrust and the Oil Monopoly: The Standard Oil Cases, 1890–1911 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1979), 175–176Google Scholar.

74 See Dewey, Donald, Monopoly in Economics and Law [1959] (Westport: Greenwood, 1976), 232–236Google Scholar; Dewey, Donald, “Antitrust Legislation” in Sills, David, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan & The Free Press, 1968), vol. 1, 352–3Google Scholar.

75 United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 F. 2d 416 (2nd Circuit, 1945).

76 Fligstein, , The Transformation of Corporate Control, 98–11Google Scholar.

77 See Eis, Carl, “The 1919–1930 Merger Movement in American Industry,” Journal of Law and Economics, 12 (1969), 284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stigler, George, “Monopoly and Oligopoly by Merger,” American Economic Review/Supplement, 40 (1950), 31–33Google Scholar; Hannah, Leslie, “Mergers,” in Porter, Glen, ed., Encyclopedia of American Economic History (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1980), vol. 2, 644–645Google Scholar; Freyer, Tony, Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America, 1980–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eichner, , The Emergence of Oligopoly, 227–228Google Scholar.