The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-08-20


suppression of competition. This is de-
nounced when the contract is in restraint
or Interstate trade as a eriminal offense
against the United States, punishable by
fine and Imprisonment, and a conspiracy
which may be restrained by injunction in
a civil suit.
The other form is denounced, with similar
remedies against it, as a monopoly of in
~terstate trade, and covers the union of the
conspirfng companies into one company
which, by owning all the plant or nearly
all the plant, engaged in the manufacture
of the product and by use of other devices,
controls the prices. The Supreme Court Of
the United States has not defined what a
MONOPOLY under this section of the anti
trust law is.
L conceive that it Is not sufficiently de-
fined by saying that 1t is the combination
of q large part of the plants In the country
engaged in the manufacture of n particular
product In one corporation. There must be
something more than the mere union of
capital and plant before the law is violat-
ed. There must be some use by the com
pany of the comparatively great size of Ats
capital and pant and extent of its output,
either to coerce persons to buy Of 1t
rather. than Of some competitor, or to CO.
cree those who would compete with II, TO
Civ up their business.
There must. in other words, be an ale
ment OF duress in the conduct of its bust
ness toward the customers In the trade and
Its competitors before mere aggregation Of
plant becomes an unlawful monopoly. 1t
Is perfectly conceivable that IN the interest
" SoiiOhl VI DIOuhCtiblt a BItdl nllillbtI
OF plants may be legitimately assembled
under the ownership of one corporation.
In such a case 1t Is either not a trust. IL
the term involves unlawfulness, or 1t Is a
lawful trust. If a trust merely means n
company which has n large part
OF he manufacturing plant of any product.
IL must be borne In mind that the time
within which competition by construction
Of new plants can be introduced into any
business Is comparatively short. rarely ex-
ceedfnR a year, and usually in even less
Tune than that. M1nV eDfprDriSpa have Dppn
organized on the theory that mere aggre-
cation of all or nearly all existing plants
IN a lin of manufacture. without regard
to economy of production, destroys COM
petition. They have, most of them, gone
tinto bankruptcy. Competition In a profit
able business will not be excluded by the
mere aggregation of many existing plants
under one company, unless the company
thereby effects great economy or takes
some illegal method to avoid competition
and to perpetuate a mold on the business.
Frequently contracts have been made
with customers by which they are required
to deal exclusively with the trust, on the
threat that IL there is not this exclusive
dealing, then at a time when they most
need the product, 1t will not be sold to
them at all, or only Mt a very high price,
and one prohibitive of profit on their part.
Again, the tremendous wealth and resources
of the trust are exerted to destroy a rival
in a particular locality by selling at n
very low price in that neighborhood and
driving him out OF business, and then rails
Ing the prices. This can be easily detected
by the inequality of the prices which the
trust asks for the same commodity in diff
ferent localities under the same conditions.
Such or like methods bring the company
within the description Of a monopoly, at
which the antitrust law Is directed.
I am inclined to the opinion that the
time is near at hand for an amendment Of
the antitrust law defining in more detail
the evils against which it is aimed, making
clearer the distinction between lawful
agreemnts reasonably restraining trade and
those which are pernicious IN their effect.
and particularly denouncing the various de-
vices for monopolizing trade which prose-
BUTTONS and Investigations have shown to
be used in actual practice. The decisions
of the courts aud the experienAe of, execu-
framing of such a statute possible. 1t will
have the good effect of making much clear
err to those business men who would obey
the laws the methods to be avoided.
Another and perhaps the most effective
method in the past for an unlawful trust
to maintain itself has been to secure secret
rebates or other unlawful advantage in
transportation, by threat of Withholding
business from the carrier. This is un-.
doubtedly what has enabled the Standard
Oil Company and the Sugar Trust and
other great combinations, to reap an Illegal
harvest and to drive all competitors from
the field. II by asserting complete Federal
control ovec the interstate railways of the
country, we can suppress secret rebates
and determinations of other kinds, we
shall have gone q long way IN the sup
preston Of the unlawful trusts.
MIR. Bryan asks me what 1 would
do with the trusts. 1 answer tina i
would restrain unlawful trusts with all
the efficiency of injunctive process and
would punish with all the severity of
criminal prosecution every attempt on
the part of aggregated capital through
the Illegal means i have described to
suppress competition.
As the criminal proeecutiOns go ON
(and many such prosecutions have now
been begun), If the violations of the
trust law are continued. undoubtedly
some shining marks will be hit, hut
the vigOr with which these prosecutions
have been continued, has created an
anxiety among those engaged In
doubtful enterprises that has either
driven them out of the business or
made them careful not to give occasion
for further complaint.
Mr.. Bryan says: HE would extirpate
trusts, root and branch If Mr.. Bryan's
language is more than mere rhetoric and
he means to seize the property, to divide
1t up and sell it In pieces, and disassemble
the parts. then ! am not in favor of his
method Of dealing with trusts, because, /
ultimately conducted greatly add TO the
prosperity of the country.
l think 1t entirely possible by the rigor-
Gus prosecutions of the law against Illegal
combinations and by the equal and inst
operation of railways, to prevent a recur-
renee OF what we have had in the past
and to restrain within the bounds of legiti-
mate and useful business all these great
corporations.
Mr.. Taft made It plain that he did not
share Bryan's approval OF the scheme to
compel all Interstate business corporations
to take out Federal licenses. He next took
up the topic of swollen fortunes. He con-
tinued:
troll Of what shall be done with a mans
property on his death. He has no right to
leave It by will and his children or heirs
have no right 70 receive 1t which the legis-