The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-08-16
,,oav ), n. article. If ire tru,. ot,ers e :

hody Of hts article: II the trust offefs -
goods IN fair competition with any sooe'1
ana either because they are better or oe'
cause they are cheaper, the customers ',f !
Inv ,ts goods and leave mine aioHe,
baye nothing to complain OF But IS
hava 4 GOOD business and the trust comes
to my customers and offers ita soous pc
low cost for the purpose OF oestroS'hs ny ~.
the trust Is not engaged III FAR compeu-
lion. and should DO restrained ~ 'nws
So Il ali comes down to question OF
notive, and motives arc very hard to de-
termlno in law or otherwise. Granting
Tint this proposed commission should
Justly have the power to prevent 9 great
corporation from killing of smaller
competitor, by cutting rates. what would
Mr. Royal do In the case Of two cor
porations equally strong It often hap
pens In contests Of this character that It
Is a struggle for existence on both sides
and that the existence OF the ono depends
upon the obstruction OF tho other II
two concerns are doing business in ter
ritory which is not able to suppore ootn'
one or the otter must eventually quit ous-
mess under the rule Of the survival OF
the Attest, In such case 1t Is necessary
FOR each to fight ns hard as 1t Gun ana
n ,,se every means In It's power-so maRe
,ts own nsht successful. But under Mr..
ROYALS plan neither would 30 pern'lt'eo
to undersell the other II either was Try
Ing to crush the otber
We do not believe that such pan
would be at all practicable. IN such
Ease IL would certainly not be cure TOE
,nonono,y for ono or the other would
bova 10 go to the wall in any event, 30
the survivor would have the helo 20 nm
self whether his competitor was crusheo
out or forced out by the clroum circumstances
81 tho case. But in any case we CONFESS
that VIC do not see how 1t would nel pos
sible to establish the fact that oorpoI-
atIcn was cutting prices FOR De sue
nj, pose OF killing OF It's competitor OF
competitors.
But II this commission were pernit'eo
to pass upon the question OF motlves'
would not thut question be ralst" ""s"'
ever one concern tried to undorsell an
other and would not the presumption III
law be that the cut was made TO- nes'roy
the competitor, and would not the puroen
of the proof practically be upon the con-
Germ that,did the cutting? And II 81, now
could such d concern show that It's mo-
Tive Vas not destruction OF its riYul: In
ether words 1t seems to us that IT wonld
he equally hard on the one hand TO prove
a bad motive as on the other hand to
prove good motive or that the motive
was not bad.
In view Of these facts 1t seems to US
tnat Mr.. Royals plan would either utter
IL fail or that It would practically de-
stroy rate cutting and compeutlcn' anu
take away from every concern ITS right
to sell its goods at its own price.
We raise these Questions not In any
cautious spirit, but with the view, as we
snid in former Article, Of threshing the
plans error and getting at the truth.
!, Another question which we would raise
goes back to the inception. and we would
know Of Mr.. Royal how he would, under
our present system OF government, estnh'
llsh a national commission which should
have power to control corporations ana
business concerns IN tho individual States.
tEt.EH.g =---..r----=-s