The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1906-01-03
LAyRENNss, S. c., Jan. 3, 1900.
MAY BE INVESTIGATED.

The General Assembly will meet in
Columbia next week. Whether or not
any new legislation affecting the cotton
mills or the cotton mill "help" will be
proposed we do not know. Generally
we have been opposed to such legisla-
ton and even now we would deprecate
any hasty or reckless interference with
the laws. Some radical measures have
in the past been suggested to defeat
which has required the most strenuous
exertions or the part of mill operators
in whom the people have confidence.
On the other hand, developments in
connection with local mill affairs may
influence some of us who have hereto
fore objected on general principles to
too much legislation to ask it as a final
resort.
From Section 212 of the Criminal
Code of South Carolina, pages 305 and
BOG, we quote:-"and all arrangements,
contracts, trusts, syndicates, associations
or combinations between two or more
persons as individuals, firms, corporations
syndicates or associations that may lessen
or affect in any tanner the full and free
competition in any tariff, rates, tolls,
premiums, or prices or seeks to control
in any way or such tariffs,
rates, tolls, premiums or prices in any
branch of trade, business or commerce,
are hereby declared to be against pub
lie policy, unlawful and void; and any
violation of the provision hereof shall
be deemed and is hereby declared to be,
destructive of full and free competition
and a conspiracy against trade"
Then follows the penalty, of fine not
less than $1,000. or more than So, 900
and imprisonment in the penitentiary
for not less than six months or more
than than ten years.
We have not quoted the entire Sec
ton, a preceding part adding to it's
strength as affecting the cost of manu-
featured articles to the or
producer.
Suppose a cotton mill in an open
market and with free competition has
been able to arrange for the sale of it's
output at less cost of selling than
formerly, the article will then cost
less to the Suppose it can
be proved that a n arrangement" or
Contract" or Association" has been
made or effected between two or more
selling agents, individuals or firms, in
Boston, or New York, to check, hinder
and destroy this free competition?"
Suppose that al arrangement" be-
tween an individual in Boston and an
individual in South Carolina can be
the Boston man to raise tariffs"
"tolls," or "prices?"
No n will question the fact that
anything that lessons the amount of
money coming to the manufacturer or
producer of goods in South Carolina
lessons the prospect of increasing the
wages of these South Carolina produc-
ers-of whom the mill help" are and
who constitute a large element of South
Cardinals population.
We do not now charge that anybody
has violated the South Carolina "anti-
trust AVA misnomer by the way
but that law covers a great deal. Few
perosns realize how drastic, sweeping
and far reaching are it's provisions.
How much a legislative commission
would be able to discover about the re-
lations of different selling agents, as
between themselves or as between
selling agents and individuals the flu
ture may possibly reveal-and it may
reveal nothing.
Let legislators familiarize themselves
with Section 212 of the Criminal Code.
RIIU n DNAnC