The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-01-07
DISCUSSES TRUST QUESTION
Marked Tendency in Business
Toward Combination
Says President

years last past toward combination
Of capital and plan; in manufacture,
sale and tfanspo. tation. The moving
causes have been several.
First, Il has rendered possible great
economy; second, by union OF tor
mer competitors it has reduced laA
Probability Of excessive competition;
and .hird if the combination has been
extensive enough, and certain meth
ods III The treatment Of competitors
and cu4 omess have been adopted,
tAe combine s have secured a monop.
oily and complete control of prices of
rates
A combination successful in achiev-
ing comp.eta control over a particu-
lar line Of manufacture has frequent
ly been called trust
The Increase in the capital Of a
business for lhe purpose OF reducing
the cost Of production and effecting
economy in HE management has be-
come as essential In modern progress
as the change from tle hand tool 10
the machine When. therefore, We
come TO constrne he object of con
sress in adoptng the so-caiied "Sher-
man anIi-lrust act in 1890 whereby
in the first section every contract,
combination in the form Of q trust
OF otherwise, o. conspiracy in re-
strain of Interstate or foreign trade
or commerce. is condemned as IN.
lawful and made subject 10 indict-
ment and resirains by iniunction
and whereby in he second section
every monopoly or attempt to monop.
oll2e, and every combination or con
SD acy with other persons to monop-
Ollie any part OF interstate trade or
commerce, is denounced as illegal
and made subject TO similar punish
ment or restraint. We must infer that
the evil aimed at was not TIE mere
bigness of the enterprise, but ii was
The aggregation OF capital and plants
with the express or implied intent to
estrain interstate or foreign com
merce or 10 monopoli2e 1t in whole
or in part
Monopoly Destroys Competition.
Monopoly DESTROYS competition ut.
terly. and the restraint of the full
and free operation OF competition has
a tendency TO restrain commerce and
trade. A combination Of persons
forme ly engaged in trade as part
nership or corporations or otherwise
nf course eliminates the competition
that existed between them; but the
incidental ending of that competition
Is not to be regarded as necessarily
rs direct restraint of trade, unless
OF such an embracing character that
the intention and effect to restrain
trade are apparent from The circum
stances, CT are expressly declared &c
be the object OF the combination
mere incidental restraint of trade
and competition is not within the in
hibi!on OF the act, but 1t Is where
the combination OF conspiracy or CON
tract Is inevia ably and directly
substantial restraint of competition
and SO restraint of trade. that the
statute is violated
1t is possible for the owners of
business Of manufacturing and sell
ng useful articles OF merchandise so
20 conduct their business as not to
violate the inhibitions Of the anti
trust law and yet 10 secu them
selves he benefits of economies of
management and of production due
10 the concentration under one con
troll OF large capital and many plants.
II they use no otGer inducement than
The constant low price OF their prod
uci and its good quality TO attract
custom, and their business is prof
table one, they violate no law If
ihel. actual competitors are small In
aompa ison with the total capital in
yes,ed, he prospect of investments
Of capital by others in such a profit
lble business is sufficiently near and
potential TO restrain them in the
prices at which they sell their prod
uct But if they attempt Nv use
)f their prepondering capital. and by
4 sale OF their goods temporarily at
nnNaly low prices, to i've out OF
business t-er competitors; or If they
attempt by exclusive contracts with
their patrons and threats of non
dealing except upon such contracts
or by other methods of similar
character, TO use the lalgeness of
their resources and the extent ol
their output compared VITA the total
output as a means of compelling cus-
tom ana frightening of competition
then ihey disclose a purpose TO re-
strain trade and 10 establish a mo-
nonoly ard violate The act
Object Of Antitrust Law.
The object of the antitrust law
was to suppress the abuses OF busi
ness OF he kind described.
II was not to interfere with great
volume Of capita which. concentrat-
ed unde. one organization. reduced
the cost Of production and made It's
profit thereby. and took no advant.
age of It's size by methods akin to
duress 70 stifle competition with IT.
| wish to make this distinction as
emphatic as possible, because con
eeiye that nothing could happen
more destructive TO the pronerty of
This country than the loss of that
great economy in production which
has been and will be effected in all
manufacturing lines BY the employ
ment OF large capital under one man
agament ! do net mean TO say that
there is nci limit beyond which the
economy Of management by the en-.
l1rgement OF plant cease: and where
this happens and combination con.
.inues beyond this point. the very
'act slows intent 20 monopolize and
not to economize.
The original purpose of many com.
was NOT vunIuIeI ru tnv v,sef'''-,'
and proper object OF reducing the
cost of production. On the contrary
4 history of most trades Will snow
AT times a feyerish desire to unite pY
a. ,,.t... 80 otnarufi 40