Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1911-12-08

Its unlawful dominion Under tho de-
cree tnese defendants will hold amounts
OF STOCK In the various Distribute com
pAhles ranging from 81 per cent as a
maximum TO 2S1A per cent. as a minimum
eAcePt IN the case of one small company,
tne Porto Rican Tobacco company, in
when they will hold IS per cent. The
tWenty-n1ne individual defendants are en-
joined for three years from buying any
STOCK except from each other, and the
group is thus prevented from extending
IT'S control during that period All parties
TO the suit. and the new companies who
are made parties. are enjoined perpetual
~ from In any way effecting any com
plnatlon between any Of the companies
IN violation of the statute by
way OF resumption OF the old trust Each
OF the fourteen companies is enjoined
from acquiring stock in any of the others.
All these companies are enjoined from
having common directors or officers, or
common buying or selling agents, or COM
mon offices, or lending money to each
other.
Size CT New Companies.
Objection was made by certain indie
pendent tobacco companies that this set
tlement was unjust because it left COM
pan1es with very large capital in active
business, and that the settlement that
would be effective to put all on equal
ity would be a division of the capital and
plant of the trust into small fractions in
amount more nearly equal to that Of each
of the independent companies. This con-
tention results from misunderstanding
of the antitrust law and it's purpose.
1t is not intended thereby to prevent the
accumulation Of large capital in business
enterprises in which such combination
can secure reduced cost of production,
sale and distribution. 1t is directly
against such an aggregation of capital
only when its purpose is that of sitting
competition, enhancing or controlling
prices and establishing a monopoly. If
we shall have by the decree defeated these
purposes and restored competition be-
tween the large units intowhich the cap
ital and plant have been divided we
shall have accomplished the useful pur-
pose Of the statute
confiscation Not the Purpose of the
Statute.
It is not the purpose of the statute to
conf1scate the property and capital Of the
offending trusts. Methods Of punishment
by fine or imprisonment Of the individual
Offenders by fine of the corporation, or
by forfeiture of it's goods in transporta-
ton, are provided, but the proceeding in
equity is a specific remedy to stop the
operation of the trust by injunction and
prevent the future use of the plant and
L venture to say that not in the history
of American law has a decree more eff
fective for such a purpose been entered
by court than that against the Tobacco
trust.
Common-Stock Ownership.
1t has been assumed that the present
pro-rata and common ownership IN all
these companies by former stockholders
Of the trust would insure continuance
of the same old single control Of all the,
companies into which the trust has by
decree been disntegrated. This is er-
roneous and is based upon the assumed IN
efficacy and innocuousness of judicial In
functions The companies are enJolned
from cooperation or comblnatlon' tney
have different managers, directors, pur-
chasing and sales agents. Ii all or any
of the numerous stockholders. reaching
into the thousands, attempt TO secure
concerted action OF the companies with
view to the control of the market, their
number is so large that such an attempt
could not we'll be concealed and Its prime
movers and all it's participants would De
at once subject to contempt proceedings
and IMPRISONMENT of summary charac-
tor The immediate result of the present
situation will necessarily be activity by
all the companies under different man
ayers and then competition must follow.
or there will be activity by one company
and stagnation by another. Only snort
time will inevitably lead to change III
ownership of the stock, as all oppor-
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear.
Movement for Repeal of the Antitrust
Law.
Rut now that the antitrust act is seen
to be effective for the accomplishment OF
the purpose of it's enactment, we are met
by a cry from many different quarters
for it's repeal 1t is said to be obstructive
of business progress. to be an attempt to
restore old-fashioned methods or de-
str,1ctive composition between small units,
and to make impossible those uselul COM
hinations of capital and the reduction OF
the cost of production that are essential
to continued prosperity ana Norman
growth.
Tn the recent decisions the Supreme
court makes clear that there is nothing
\, tho statute which condemns combina-
toms of capital or mere bigness or plant
organized to secure economy IN proouG-
tiop and q reduction of its cost. IL IS only
when the purpose or necessary eject U
the organization and maintenance OF the
combination or the ag%regauon VI AlA-
roanse size are the sitting of competftlon'
aot,al and potential, and the enhancing
of nrices and establishing a monopoly,
that the statute is violated Mere SIZE
is NO sin against the law. The merging
If two or more bushes plants necessarily
eliminates competition between the UNITS
thus combined but this elimination Is IN
contrayention of the statute only wnen
the combination is made for purpose OF
ending this particular competition In OF
dar to secure control of. and enhance
nrices and create monopoly
Lack of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
chat II is, not sufficiently definite In It's
descrdption of that which Is foroidden, 10
enable business men to avoid It's Vlola-
t;on The suggestion is. that we may
nave combination of two corporations
ubtcb may run on for years, and that
snbsaouently the attorney general may
conclude that It was violation OF the
statute and that which was supposed oy
fbe combiners to be inocent tnen turns
ont TO be q combination In Vloiauoh Oh
tba statute. The answer to TINS hypo-
the+ical case is that when men attempe
tn amass stupendous capital as VIII enaoie
them to suppress competition, controi
prices and establish a monopoiy they
know the purpose of their acts. Men 40
not do such thing without having II
clearly in mind
New Remedies Suggested.