The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-08

OF the Word Is TO be explained DN inc lsct
that a usual method OF CARRYING out the
plan Of the combination has been TO put
The capital and plants Of various indiNid-
uslS, firms or corporations, engaged M
the same business, under the control OF
trustees.
Increase in Capital Necessary.
The increase in the capital OF a bust
ness for the purpose OF reducing the con-
troll OF production Of effeot'ns economy
In the mana cement, has become as essen
,lal In modern progress the change
from the hand tool TO the machine. w Hen,
therefore We come 10 construe the OBJ
jcCt of congress in adopting tho so-calI"d
Sherman antitrust act In 1890 whereby
in the first section every contract com
bnatiou in the form OF n trust or other
wise or conspiracy In restraint OF inter
stale or foreign trade commerce is
condemned as unlawful and made sub
icct 10 indictment and restraint by IN
junction. and whereby in the second sec
ton. every monopoly. or attempt TO mo-
nopolize and every combination or con-
splracy with other persons 10 monopotize.
any part OF interstate trade or commerce,
is denounced as illegal and made subject
TO similar punishment or restraint, we
must Infer that the evil aimed al was
not The mere bisness or the enterprise;
but Il was the aggregation OF capital and
nlants with tho express or implied in
lent 10 restrain interstate or foreign com-
Inerce. or TO nonopolize it In whole or i'll
part.
and the restraint of the full and free
operation OF competition has tendency
10 ain commerce and trade. y com
binatior OF persons formerly engaged in
trade as partnerships or corporations or
otherwise of course. eliminates the com
petition that existed between them. bur
the incidental ending OF that competi-
ton is not 10 be regarded necessarily as
a direct restraint OF trade. unless of
such an embrs cling character thai the
Intention and effort 10 restrain trade ire
apparent from the circumstance. or are
expressly declared to be tho object OF
the combination. A mere incidental re-
stIa int OF trade and competition ts not
within the inhibition OF tho act, but 1t
s where the combination or conspiracy
or contract is inevitable and directly
Substantial RESTRAINT Of competition. and
so a restraint Of trade. that the statute
rhc second section of the act is a
stTaint OF trade, such as Is condemned
in tho first section. II successful and
the commonest methods or securing a
trade monopoly, condemned in the sec
ond section
Happy Medium Possible.
II il possible for the owners of
duct their business AS NOT 10 violate tho
inhibitions OF the antitrust Law and Yet
economics Of management and Of pro-
ductop due 10 the concentration under
one control of large capital and many
plants II they use no other induce
n1ent than the constant low price OF
their product and its good quality 10 at
tract custom. and their business is a
profitable one. they violate no law. II
thch actual competitors are small. IN
comparison with the total capital in
vested, the prospect Of Investments Of
ca pital by others in such profits BILE
business is sufficiently near and potential
10 restrain them in the prices AT which
trey sell their product. But if they at