The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1907-08-20

changed by statute so that this exemp-
tlon from liability IS not secured by
he consultation % The railroad COM
panies. The abolition q The exehp-
ton certainly iamis hes a strong MO
tive % the allfold companies fct the
exerclss Il rsater case IA the cleo
Hon, supervision and coltrol7 Of gu q
their employees which tends not only
to! the safety q their employ buS
aiso to the safety Of their passengers
Trusts.
] pass now from railway regulation
and the abuses arising in the dis
charge Of a publicfunction to the evils
which have grown out Of the combina.
lions existing in private business, and
so come to the subject of trusts. The
combination Of capital In large plants
to manufacture goods with the great
est economy Is Just as necessary as
the assembling Of the parts Of a ma
chine to the economical and more rap
ID manufacture Of what in old times
was made by hand. The government
should not interfere with the one any
more than the other. In the proper
operation of competition the public will
soon share with Tie manufacturer the
advantage in lowered prices, When,
however, such combinations not only
lower the cost to themselves, but are
able to control. the market and main
tain or raise the old prices, the pub
lie derives no benefit and is helpless in
the hands Of a monopoly.
Antitrust Law.
Fear of the existence of such an
abuse led to the passage of the anti
trust law, in 1890. 1t recognizes two
forms in which this evil may be main.
tained. One is. by an agreement among
a number of different manufacturers
Of an article for the maintenance of
the price of the article and the sup
preston Of competition. This is de-
nounced when the contract Is in re.
straint Of interstate trade as a Grimm
al offense against the United States,
punishable by fine and imprisonment,
and a conspiracy which may be re-
strained by Injunction in civil suit.
The other form is denounced, with
similar remedies against it, as a mo-
nopoly of interstate trade, and covers
the union Of the conspiring 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 de-
fined what a monopoly under this sec.
ton of the antitrust law is.
Definition Of Unlawful Monopoly.
l conceive that it is not sufficiently
defined by saying that it is the combi.
nation on a large part of the plants in
the country engaged in the manufac.
ture Of a particular product ine on cor
poratlon. There must be something
more than the mere union Of capital
and plant before the law is violated.
There must be some use by the COM
bany of the comparatively great size
of its capital and plant and extent OF
its output, either TO coerce persons to
buy Of it rather than of some COM
petitor, or to eoerce those who would
compete with It, to give up their bust
ness. There must, in other words, be
an element Of duress in the conduct Of
Its business toward the customers in
the trade and It's competitors before
mere aggregation of plant becomes an
unlawful monopoly. 1t is perfectly
conceivable that in the interest of
economy of production, a great num-
Der of plants may be. legitlmately as
sembled under the ownership Of one
corporation. In such case 1t is either
not trust, If the term involves I'M
lawfulness, or It is a lawful trust, II a
trust merely means a company which
has assembled large part of the man.
ufacturing plant of any product, It
may be, as Mr.. Bryan, in his controver'
sy with Senator Beverage says that
there is limit in the union OF capital
and plant that will effect economy
and that after that limit is reached
the increase oithe plant or the capital
rather enlarges the risk in the man,
agement of the business, and is likely
to increase the cost of production
rather than to diminish 1t. If so, then
when corporation goes beyond that
limit, there is reasonable presump
+;on that n 10 dining so for the nurnose