A member of my Cabinet with whom, even more than with the various Attorneys-General, I went over every detail of the 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 believe we were deceived by Judge Gary.

“This, I think, is a case that shows clearly the difference between destructive litigation and constructive legislation.  I have not yet seen a full copy of the Government’s petition, but our papers give nothing that indicates any kind of unfair or dishonest competition such as existed in both the Standard Oil and Tobacco Cases.  As I understand it, the competitors of the Steel Company have steadily increased in strength during the last six or seven years.  Furthermore, the per cent of the business done by the Steel Corporation has decreased during that time.  As you will remember, at our first conference with Judge Gary, the Judge stated that it was the desire 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.  Throughout 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 Company refused any information requested; but, on the contrary, aided in every possible way our investigation.

“The position now taken by the Government is absolutely destructive 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 future action.  This method of procedure 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 situation 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 incorporated 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 Corporation of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company; and it has been alleged, on the authority of the Government officials engaged in carrying on the suit, that as regards this transaction I was misled by the representatives