The Daily Missoulian., 1910-01-08

/ commerce. or to monopolize IL in Who'll
or in part
Monopoly destroys competition utter
! iy and the restraint of the full an,
/ free operation of competition has ;
! tendency to restrain commerce ant
trade. A combination of persons, for
/ nerly engaged I'm trade as partner
| ships or corporations or otherwise. Of
course. eliminate the competition thai
] existed between them but the incident.
al ending Of that competition is not te
! be regarded necessarily as q direct re.
straint.of trade unless of such an EN-.
bracing character that the intention
and effort to restrain trade are ap-
parent from the circumstances. or are
expressly declared to be the object OF
the combination. A more incidental
restraint of trade and competition is
not within the inhibition Of the act.
but II is where the combination or con-
spiracy or contract is inevitable and
directly substantial restraint of com.
petition and so a restraint of trade.
that the statute is violated.
Restraint Of Trade.
The second section of. the act is a
supplement of the first. A direct re-
straint of trade, such as Is condemned
in the first section, If successful and
used to suppress competition. is one
OF the commonest methods of securing
a trade monopoly. condemned in the
second section. 1t is possible for the
owners of business of manufactu turing
and selling useful articles of merchan-
disc so to conduct their business as
not to violate the inhibitions of the
antitrust law and yet to secure to them
selves the benefits of the economies
oil management and OF production due
TO the concentration under one control
OF large capital and many plants. IF
they use no other inducement than the
constant low price of their product and
ITS good quality To attract custom. and
their business Is a profitable one, they
violate no law. IF their actual COM
peti;ors are small. in comparison with
the total capital invested. the prospect
Of investments of capital by others in
such profitable business Is sufficient
ly near and potential to restrain them
In the prices at which they sep their
product. But If they ATTEMPT bv n
use of their prepondcratinR capital
arily at undue low prices, to drive out
d business their competitors. or IL
lhey attempt by exclusive contracts
WIN their patrons and threats OF non-
iealing except upon such contracts. or |
'y other methods of similar charac-
er to use the largeness of their re-
sources and the extent of their out
'ut. compared with the total output as !
means of compelling custom and
rightening off competition. then they
asclose purpose to restrain trade and
establish a monopoly. and violate
he act. s
Suppress Abssses.
The object of the antitrust law was
9 suppress the abusesiof business of
ne kfnd described. 1t was not to in
ertere with great volume of capital
'hich concentrated under one organ
sation. reduced the cost of production
nd made its profits thereby. and took
advantage or its size by methods
kin to duress 70 stiff competition
ith It, ! wish to make this distinc-
ON as, .spQhatic as possible, becaase.,..
concefves that nothing could happen
lore destructive to The prSperty Of tiis
'untry than the loss oflthst economy
production which hassbeen and win
effected in all manufacturing lines
the employment of large capital
nder one management. 1 do not
can To sav that there Is not a limit
Ayond which the economy OF man
cement BY the enlargement of plan, {
'ases;. and where this happens. and
continues beyond this
'iht' the very fact shows intent to-
ohopolize. and not to economize.
Original Purpose.
The original purpose Of MANY com
nations of CAPITAL in this country :
as not confined TO the legitimate and
'oper object Of reducing the cost of n
'oauction. On the contrary. the his
ry of most trades will show at times {
IeVerish desire TO unite by purchase.
or otherwise. all the
ahts IN the country engaged in the I
ahuiactnfe of particular kind of $
'eas. Ihe idea was rife that thereby
monopoly could be affected and i
atfci OF prices brought about which I
aud inure 10 the profits Of those en- a
sed IN the combination. t
Many Failures.
ihc path of commerce is strewn with :,
lures OF such combinations. Their 4
epectors found that the union of all 4
plants did not prevent competition, y
eeciaiiy where proper economy had \
been pursued in the purchase and r
the conduct of the business after .
aggregation Was complete. n
ere We're enough. however. of such 4
eeessful combinations tc arouse the :,
1rs OF good. patriotic men as 10 the ;,
suit OF a continuance of this move
nj toward the concentration i'm the
nds of few of the absolute control
the prices Of all manufactured n
,ducts. . h.
he antitrust statute was passed i'm ST
AMI prosecutions were soon begun W
der II. In the case OF the United in
lies versus Knight. known as the al
isar trust case becanse OF the II
rrow scope of the pleadtngs. the IL
hpiha,Ion sought to be enjoined was to
q not 10 be included within the pro- eli
fton OF the act. beause the aver m
MS did not go beyond the mere ac- W
sition OF manufacturing plants for tr
refining OF sugar and did not in
dc that of a direct and intended re- to