The Mena weekly star., 1910-01-13
ANTITRUST LAW AND
 FEDERAL INCORP0RATIONS
Government Control of Big Industrial Corporations Favored--Asserts Scope of Present Law Is
 Too Wide.

There has been a marked tendency in business in this country for 70 years last past toward combinations of capital and plant in manufacture, sale and trans portation. The moving causes have been several: First 1t has rendered possible great economy; second, by 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 combiners have secured 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 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 busi- ness for the purpose of reducing the cost of production and effecting economy in the management has become as essen tiai in modern progress the change from the hand tool to the machine When, therefore. we come to construe
 
 so-called sherman Antitrust Act" in 1890. whereby in the first section every contract, combination in the form of 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 injunctton and whereby in the sec- ond section every monopoly or attempt 10 monopolize, and every combination or conspiracy with other persons to monopo- iize any part of interstate trade or com merce, is denounced as illegal and made subject to similar punishment or re- straint, we must infer that the evil aimed at was not the mere bigness of the en- terprise, but 1t was the aggregation of capital and plants with the express or Implied intent to restrain interstate or foreign commerce, or to monopolize 1t in whole or in part.
 Trust Not Necessarily Bad.
 Monopoly destroys competition entire iy and the restraint of the fun an1 fire operation of compcH-'ea hes a tef len ' to restrain connnercc and trade com bination of persons, formerly engaged in trade as partnerships or corporations or otherwise of course eliminates the com petition 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- tention and effect to restrain trade are apparent from the circumstances or are expressly 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 1t Is where the combination or conspiracy or contract is inevitably and directly n substantial constraint of competition, and so a restraint of trade, that the statute Is violated,
 The second condition of the act is sup plement of the first. A direct restraint of trade such as is condemned in the 1rst section If successful and used to suppress competition, is one of the com monest methods of securing q trade monopoly, condemned in the second section.
 II is possible for the owners of busi- ness of manufacturing and selling useful articles Of merchandise so to conduct their business as not to violate the in- hibitions of the anu-trust law and yet to secure to themselves the benefit of ths economies of management and of produc. uon due to the concentration under one control of large capital and many plants II they use no other inducemeut than the constant low price of their produet and It's good quality to attract custom, and their business is a profitable one. they violate no law. If their actual competitors are nmail In comparison with the total capital invested. the prospect or new Investments of capital by others In such profitable business is sufficient " near and potential to restrain them in tine prices at which they sell their prod uet. But If they attempt by 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- .suslve .s contracts with their patrons and threats of non-dealing. except unon a,eh contracts or by other methods of a sim lar character, to use the larEeness of thesr feacArees and tie extent of their sai.ns compared with the total output is n'@ ns If compelling custom ana
 Continued on seventh page.