New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-11-24
AlIENDMEAT NEEDED.

There seems hardly any reason 10
question the test of the legality az
combination laid down I'm the STANDARD
oil decision-namely. that IL Is illegal If
its necessary effect is directly and sub
stantialIy 10 restrict free competition in
interstate trade. The sherman act APP
pears 10 be fairly explicit. and this was
I'm all probability its intent. But il may
he doubted whether such a restriction
upOn the freedom of business organiZa-
ton is required by public opinion to-
DAY.
The competition from the suppression
or restriction Of which the Standard OH
Company is enjoined j. competition
among the subsidiaries it controlled.
nothing being said IN the decision about
the efforts of the trust 10 suppress COM
petition by independents. Thus within
the meaning OF that test OF legality any
combination which unites two or more
rivals. thus ending competition between
them. If IN this process il substantially
restricts competition in interstate trade,
is Illegal II makes no difference what
the effects of this restriction are.
whether beneficial or otherwise. As
Judge Hook remarked in his opinion:
Nor can arguments Of reduced price
~of product. economy IN operation and
1.-The Ike have weight" There l. no dis
tinctiOn I'm the law ',e.ween a good trust
and a had trust. If combination We're
effected 10 monOpolize an industry for
the sole purpose Of reducing prices 70
the public il would still apparently be
illegal
II that is the meaning Of the sherman
act-and il appears 10 be-wc do not he
lieve ii represents the present public
attitude toward Industrial combina-
ti0ns. We see no such hostility L. unions
between previous competitors - would
be implied 10y the doctrine that argu-
ments about economies and reduction ia
prices 10 DE effected thereby have no
weight In the public mind we believe
those arguments have the most weight
We doubt If the people are attached TO
the competitive principle per Sc and are
determined 10 maintain il at any cost.
The question which they ask about
new combination il how it is going 10
affect them. The objection is not 10 the
union Of TWO competitors in itself, but
% the use Of the power which that union
gives 10 exploit the public.
II there were intense opposition 10
combination and firm resolution 10
maintain competition the sherman act
would not have been 50 seldom resOrted
10 in the last thirty years. and there
would have been constant exhibitions Of
lively public concern az the rapid prog
ress Of business toward Capitalization.
Hardly a week passes without the news
of the formation Of some new cOmbina-
ton. Hei such news does not arouse
anxiety. A few days ago. for example.
The telegraph and telephone combination
was announced. That announcement
evoked no evidence Of public resent
ment The hope was expressed that il
would result ia reduced rates 10 the
pUElic. and we dare say the feeling was
general that If il should do so the union
OF the TWO or three companies would
be desirable
The situation suggests the need If an
amendment OF the Sherman act which
viii give weight 20 arguments about the
benefits Of a combination or the reverse.
The difficulty seems 20 be 70 make such
an amendment definite Attorney Gen
eral Wickersham took mp this topic in
his Kansas City speech, but il cannot
be said that he showed how any clear
line OF demarcatiOn could be laid down
in the law between she trust that should
lee permitted and the trust thar should
be punished