The Green Forest tribune., 1910-01-14

portation. The moving causes have been several: First, it has rendered possible great economy; second, by a union Of former competitors it has reduced the probability of excessive competitions: and, third, if the combination has been ex- tensive enough, and certain methods in the treatment of competitors and GUS toners have been adopted, the containers have secured a monopoly and complete control of prices or rates.
 A combination successful in achieving complete control over a particular line of manufacture has frequently been called a trust" I presume that the derivation of the word is to be explained by the fact that a usual method of carrying out the plan of the combination has been to put the capital and plants of various individ- uals, firms, or corporations engaged in the same business under the control of trustees.
 The increase in the capital of a busi- ness for the purpose of reducing the cost of production and effecting economy in the management has become as ossen- tial in modern progress as the change from the hand tool to the machine When, therefore, we conie to construe the object of congress in adopting the so-calIed Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, whereby in the first section every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in re- straint of interstate or foreign trade or commerce, is condemned as unlawful and made subject to indictment and restraint by injunction; and whereby in the sec ond section every monopoly or attempt to monopolize. and every combination or conspiracy with other persons to monopo- lize any part of interstate trade or com merce, is denounced as illegal and made subject to similar punishment or re- strant we must infer that the evil aimed at was not the mere bigness of the en- terDrise but it was the aggregation of capital and plants with the express or implied intent to restrain interstate or foreign commerce, or to monopolize it in whole or in part.
 Trust Not Necessarily Bad.
 Monopoly destroys competition entire- ly and the restraint of the full and free operation of competition has d tendency to restrain commerce and trade. A com hination of persons, formerly engaged in trade as partnerships or corporations or otherwise of course eliminates the com netition that existed between them; but the incidental ending of that competition is not to be regarded as necessarily a direct restraint of trade, unless of such an all-embracing character that the in 
 apparent from the circumstances or are eypressls declared to be the object of the combination. A mere incidental re- straint of trade and competition is not within the inhibition of the act but it is where the combination or conspiracy or contract is inevitably and directly a substantial constraint of competition, and so a restraint of trade, that the statute is violated.
 The second condition of the act is SUD- plement of the first. A direct restraint of trade such as is condemned in the first section, if successful and used to suppress competition, is one of the com honest methods of securing q trade monopoly, condemned in the second section.
 It is possible for the owners of a busi- ness of manufacturing and selling useful articles of merchandise so to conduct their business as not to violate the in hibitions of the antitrust law and yet to secure to themselves the benefit of the economies of management and of prOduC- tion 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 it's good quality to attract custom, and their business is a profitable one, they violate no law. If their actual competitors are small in comparison with the total capital invested. the prospect of new investments of capital by others in such profitable business is sufficient ly near and potential to restrain them in the prices at which they sell their prod uct. But if they attempt by a use of their preponderating capital, and by a sale of their goods temporarily at unduly low prices. to drive out of business their competitors, or if they attempt by ex= elusive contracts with their patrons and threats of non-dealing, except upon such contracts or by other methods of a sim liar character, to use the largeness of their resources and the extent of their output compared with the total output as a means of compelling custom and frightening off competition, then they disclose a purpose to restrain trade and to establish a monopoly, and violate the act.