Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-01-08


| their business is a profitable one, they
| violate no law If their actual compe-
titors are small in comparison with the
total capital investor the prospect Of
new investments of capital by others
in such a profitable business is suffi-
GENTLY near and potential to restrain
| them in the ,.rices at which they sell
their product. But if they attempt by
use of their preponderating capital
and by a sale of their goods temper
arily at unduly low prices to drive out
| of business their competitors, or if
they attempt. by excessive contracts
with their patrons and threats of nom
dealing except upon such contracts, or
by other methods of a similar charac-
ter, to use the largeness of their re-
sources and the extent of their output
compared with the total output as
means of compelling custom and frigh-
tening off competition, they disclose
purpose to restrain trade and to estab-
fish monopoly and violate the act.
The object of the antitrust law was
| to suppress the abuses or business OF
the kind described
1T was not to interfere with a great
volume of capital which, concentrated
| unGeF one OTSdHIZdllOlI. Ituuctu llIt
cost of production and made it's profit
thereby, and took no advantage of it's
size by methods akin to duress to sti
fle competition within it.
II wish to make this distinction as
| emphatic as possible. because | con-
ceive that nothing could happen more
destructive to the property of this
| country than the loss of that great
economy in production which has been
and will be affected in all manufacture
ing lines by the employment of large
capital under one management. | do
not mean to say that there is not Il
limit beyond which the economy Of
| management by the enlargement Of
plant ceases; and where this happens
and combination continues beyond this
point. the very fact shows intent to
monopoliZe and not to econOmize.
1.-THE original purpose of many COM
binations of capital in this country
| was not confined to the legitimate and
| proper object of reducing the cost of
production. On the contrary. the his
| tory of most trades will show at times
| a feveriSh desire to unite by purchase,
combination, or otherwise all the
plants in the country engaged in the
| manufacture of 4 particular line of
goods. The idea was rifle that thereby
a monopoly could be effected and a
control of prices brought about which
would insure to the profit of those en-
gagged in the combination. The path
of commerce is strewn with failures Of
such combinations. Their projectors
found that the union of all the plants
did not prevent competition especially
| where proper economy had not been
pursued in the purchase and in the
conduct of the business after the ag-
gregation was complete. There We're
| enough, however. Of such successful
| combinations to arouse the fears of
| good. patriotic men as to the result OF
| Il continuance of this movement
toward the concentration in tho hands
| Of a few of the absolute control of the
prices of all manufactured products.
| THE antitrust statute was passed in
1890 and prosecutions We're soon begun
| under it. In the case of the United
| States VS.. Knight known as the 'Su-
| gar trust case" because of the narrow
| scope of the pleadings, the combina-
| ton sought to he enjoined was held
| not to he included within the prohibit
| ton of the act, because the aVerments
did not so beyond the mere acquis-
| ton of manufacturing plants FOR the
| refining of sugar, and do not include
| that of a direct and intended restraint
| unon trade and commerce in the sale
and delivery of sugar across state
boundaries and in foreign trade. The
result of the sugar trust case was not
| happy, in that it gave other compan-
| ;ac nd tjDpc seeking q similar
| method Of making profit by establish
| ing an absolute control and monopoly
| in a particular line OF manufacture
sense of immunity against prosecutions
in the federal jurisdiction: and where
that jurisdiction is barred in re-
spcct to a business which is neces-
| sarily commensurate with the hounda-
RES OF the country. no state rrosecu-
ton is able to supply the needed ma
chinery for adequate restraint or pun
ishment
"Following the sugar trust decision,
however there have come along in the
slow but certain course of judicial dis
position cases involving construc-
| tion of the antitrust statute and its
application until now they seem to
embrace every phase of that law
which can be practically presented TO
| the American public and to the gov
eminent for action. They show that
! the antitrust act has a wide scope
| and applies to many combinations III
Iactual operation. rendering them un-
lawful and subject to Indictment ana
| restraint
| THE supreme court in several or itS
decisions .has declined to read mi" 'he
statute the word unreasonable before
| restraint of trade on the ground that
the statute applies to all Restraints
| and does not intend to leave to the
court the discretion to determine what
| is a reasonable restraint OF trade:
| The expression restraint of trade
comes from the common law, and at
common law there We're certain
covenants incidental to the carrying
out of a main or principal contract
which were said to be covenants in
martial restraint of trade and were
held to be enforcible because reason
ably adapted to the performance OF
the main or principal contract. And
under the general language used by
the supreme court in several cases. it
u q