The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1911-12-15

nar,.. with a view to the control q
thu ,,orket. their number Is 50 large
that .,cb an attempt could not Wen Do
cov,oa.,oa and it's prime movers ana
ali tts participants would be at once
subject to contempt PROCEEDINGS anu
imnrisonment Of summary chaIaceel.
The Immediate result OF the p.ssI -.
sifnotion will necessarily be activity Dy
All tha companies under different man
ayers and then competition must FOL
low ar there will be activity by one
comnanv and stagnation by anotner.
IOnlv short time will inevitably LEAD
to q change in ownership OF the Stock
as All opportunity for continued Co
Operation must disappear. inose cli.,cs
who sneak of this disfntegrat1on In the
trust as a mere change OF garments
have not given consideration to the
inevftab BILE working of the decree ana
understand little the personal danger
Of attempting to evade or set at naught
the solemn Injunction of court whose
object is made plain by the decree ana
whose inhibitions are set forth with
detail and comprehensiveness unexam-
pied in the history OF equity 1urlspru-
dence.
The effect Of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton of manufacturers of electric lamps,
a Southern wholesale grocers' assoc1a-
ton an inteslocutOry decree against
the Powder Trust with directions by
the Circuit Court compelling dissolu-
ton, and other combinations OF SIM
liar history are now negotiating with
the Department Of Justice looking to
disintegration by decree and reor-
ganization in accordance with law. 1t
seems possible to bring about these
reorganizations without general busi-
ness disturbance.
Movement for Repeal.
But now that the antitrust act is
seen to be effective for the accom-
plishment of the purpose of its enact
ment, we are met by cry from many
different quarters for it's repeal. It is
said to be obstructive of business prog
resS to be an attempt to restore old
fashioned methods of destructive COM
petition between small units and to
make impossible those useful combi-
nations of capital and the reduction
Of the cost of production that are es-
sential to continued prosperity and
normal growth.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
Court makes clear that there is nothing
in the statute which condemns combi-
nations of capital or mere bigness OF
plant organized to secure economy in
production and reduction of its cost.
1t is only when the purposes or neces-
sary effects of the organization and
maintenance of the combination or ag-
gregation of immense size are the stiff
ling of competition. actual and poten-
tial, and the enhancing Of prices and
establishing monopoly. that the stat
ute is violated. Mere size is no sin
against the law. The merging of two
or more business plants necessarily
eliminates competition between the
mil S hue nv,nh hut h Is al -
nation is in contravention of the
statute only when the combination
is made for the purpose OF emo.
ing this particular competition in
order to secure control of, and
enhance, prices and create monopoly.
The complaint is made OF the statute
that it is not sufficiently definite in its
description Of that which is forbidden
to enable business men to avoid it's vio-
lation. The suggestion is. that we may
have combination Of two corpora
lions, which may run on for years, and
that subsequently the Attorney General
may conclude that twas violation of
the statute, and that which was sup
posed by the combiners to be innocent
then turns out to be combination in
violation Of the statute. The answer to
this hypothetical case is that when men
attempt to amass such stupendous cap
ital as will enable them to suppress
competition, control prices and estab-
lish monopoly, they know the pur-
pose Of their acts. Men do not do such
thing without having it clearly in
mind. II what they do Is merely for
the purpose of reducing the cost of pro-
duction without the thought Of sup
pressing competition by use OF the big
ness of the plant they are creating, then
they cannot be convicted at the time
the union is made, nor can they be con-
victed later. unless it happen that later
on they conclude to suppress competl-
ton and take the usual methods for
doing so, and thus establish for them
selves monopoly. They can, in such
a case, hardly complain IL the motive
which subsequently is disclosed is at
tributed by the court to the original
combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much Is said Of the repeal OF this
statute and OF constructive legislation
intended to accomplish the purpose and
blaze clear path for honest merchants
and business men to follow. 1t may
be that such plan will be evolved, but
submit that the discussions which
have been brought out in recent days
by the fear Of the continued execution
of the antitrust law have produced
nothing but glittering generalities and
have offered no line of distinction or
rule OF action as definite and as clear
as that which the Supreme Court itself
lays down in enforcing the statute.
see no 0bjection-and indeed can
see decided advantages-in the enact
ment OF law which shall describe AID
denounce methods Of competition which
are unfair and are badges OF the UNI
lawful purpose denounced in the anti
trust law. The attempt and purpose to
suppress competitor by underselling