Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-01-07


mercc. 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 enterprise but it was the agGrega-
ton OF capital and plants with the cx-
| press or implied intent to restrain in
terState or foreign commerce. or TO
monopolize 1t in whole or In part.
MONOPOLY KILLS COMPETITION.
Monopoly destroys competition ut
| terly, and the restraint of the full and
| free operation of competition has a ten
| dency TO restrain commerce and trade.
combination OF persons formerly en-
| gagged in trade as partnerships or cor
| porationS or otherwise, of course elm
mates the competition that existed be-
| tween them but the incidental ending OF
! that competition is not to be regarded
| necessarily aS a direct restraint OF
trade. unless of such an embracing
| character that the intention and effort
| to restrain trade arc apparent from the
| circumstances or are expressly de-
clared to be the object of the combina-
| tion. a mere incidental restraint Of
| trade and competition is not within the
| inhibition of the act but 1T is where the
| combination or conspiracy or contract Is
| inevitable and directly a substantial
| restraint of competition, and so a
| restraint of trade, that the statute is
| violated
The second section of the act is sup
| 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
| monest methods of securing a trade
| monopoly, condemned In the second Sec
| ton.
1t Is possible for the owners of 4
| business of manufacturing and selling
useful articles Of merchandise so to
| conduct their business as not to
| violate the inhbitions of the anti
| trust law and yet to secure themselves
| the benefits of the economies of man
| agement and of production due to the
| concentration under one control OF largo
| capital and many plants. If they use
| no other inducement than the constant
| low price of their products and it's good
| quality to attract custom. and their
| business is a profitable one. they vlo-
| late no law II their actual competi-
| tors are small. In comparison with the
| total capital invested the prospect of
| Investments of capital by others in such
| profitable business is sufficiently near
and potential to restrain them in the
| prices at which they sell their products.
| But if they attempt by a use of their
| preponderatinE capital and by a sale OF
| their goods temporarily at undue low
| prices. to drive out of business their
competitions or II they attempt by
| exclusive contracts with their patrons
and threats of non dealing except upon
| such contracts, or by other methods
Of a similar character to use the large
| ness of their resources and the extent of
| their output compared with tho total
output as a means OF compelling GUS
| tom and frightening off competition,
! then they disclose purpose to restrain
| trade and TO establish a monopoly,
and violate the act.
PURPOSE OF LAW.
The object of the antitrust law was
to suppress the abuses of buiness of
| the kind described.
! 1t was not to interfere with a great
| volume of capital which concentrated
| under one organization. reduced the
| cost of production and made it's profit
thereby, and took no advantage of its
| size by methods akin to duress to Stifle
competition with 1t.
| / wish to make this distinction as en-
phatic as possible. because l conceive
that nothing could happen more de-
| structive to the property of this coun-
! try than the loss of that economy in
| production which has been and will be
| effected In all manufacturing lines by
the employment of large capital under
| one management. I do not mean to
| say that there Is not a limit beyond
| which the economy of management by
| the enlargement of plant ceases: and
| where this happens, and combination
| continues beyond this point, the very
| fact shows intent to monopolize, and
| not to economiZe,
COMBINATIONS OF CAPITAL.
The original purpose of many COM
binations of capital In this country was
not confined to the legitimate and prop
er object OF reducing the cost of pro-
duction. On the contrary, the history
of most trades will show at times Il
feverish desire to unite by purchase
combination or otherwise, all the plants
In the country engaged in the manu-
facture of particular kind of goods
The idea was rife that thereby a mo-
nopoly could be effected and a control
of prices brought about which would
inure to the profit of those engaged In
the combination.
The path OF commerce is strewn with
failures of such combinations. Their
projectors found that the union of al
the plants did not prevent competition
especially where proper economy had
not been pursued In the purchase and
in the conduct of the business after
| the aggregation was complete. There
was enough. however, of such success
full combinations to arouse the fears ot
good, patriotic men as to the result
of a continuance of this movement To-
ward the concentration In the hands OF
n few of the absolute control of the
prices of all manufactured products.
STATUTE OF 1890.
The antitrust statute was passed ir
1890 and prosecutions were soon be.
gun under 1t. In the case OF the Unitet
States VS.. Knight. known as the "Sugal
trust case" because of the narrow
scope OF the pleadings, the combination
sought to be enjoined was held not u
be included within the prohibition o.
the act, because the ayerments did no
so beyond the mere acquisition O
manufacturing plants for the refining
OF sugar. and did not include that o
n direct and intended restraint upor
trade and commerce In the sale an(
delivery of sugar across state bound
, aries In foreign trade. The result o.
the sugar trust case was not happy, IL
that 1t gave other companies and or
J ganiZations seeking a similar method
) or making profit by establishing ar
absolute control and monopoly in
particular line of manufacture a sens,
of Immunity against prosecution in til,
federal jurisdiction. and where tina
jurisdiction is barred In respect to
business which is necessarily commen
Surate with the boundaries of tn,
country. no state prosecution Is able e
supply the needed machinery for adc
| quatc restraint or punishment