Norwich bulletin., 1911-12-06
41lllRti1t

| tion or combinations: they have differ
 ent managers. directors. purchasing i and sales agents. If all or many of | the numerous stockholders. reachine z | 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 well be concealed | and it's prime movers and all it's partic- | ipants would be al once subject to con | tempt proceedings and Imprisonment
 of summary character. The immedi-
 ate result of the present situation will necessarily be activity by all the com panies under different managers, and then competition must follow or there
 will be activity by one company and
 stagnation by another. Only a short
 time will inevitably lead to a change
 in ownership of the stock. as all op- portunity for continued cooperation must disappear. Those critics who speak of this disintegration in the trust as mere change of garments have not
 given consideration to the inevitable
 working of the decree and understand
 little the personal danger of attempt ing to evade or set at naught the sol emn injunction of a court whose object is made plain by the decree and whose inhibitions are set forth with q detail and comprehensiveness unexampIed in the history of equity jurisprudence.
 Voluntary Reorsanizations Of Other
 Trusts at Hand.
 The effect of these two decisions has led to decrees dissolving the combina- tion of manufacturers of electric lamps, a southern wholesale grocers' association, an interlocutory decree against the powder trust, with direc- tions by the circuit court compelling dissolution, and other combinations of a similar history are now negotiating with the department of justice looking to a disintegration by decree and re organization in accordance with law. It seems possible to bring about these reorganizat tons without general busi- ness disturbance.
 Movement For Repeal of the Anti
 trust Law.
 But now that the anti thrust act is seen to be effective for the accomplish ment of the purpose of it's enactment we are met by cry from many differ ent quarters for its repeal. It is said to be obstructive of business progress, to be an attempt to restore old fash toned methods of destructive competi- tion between small units and to make impossible those useful combinations of capital and the reduction of the cost of production that are essential to con tinued prosperity and normal growth.
 In the recent decisions the supreme court makes clear that there is noth ing in the statute which condemns combinations of capital or mere big ness of plant organized to secure econ omy in production and reduction Of its cost. It is only when the purpose or necessary effect of the organization and maintenance of the combination or the aggregation of immense size are the stiiing of competition, actual and potential. and the enhancing of prices and esta blishing a monopoly that the statute is violated Mere size is no sin against the law The merging of two or more business plants necessari | ly eliminates competition between the | units thus combined, but this elimina- | ton is in contravention of the statute 1 only when the combination is made for | purpose of ending this particular com petition in order to secure control of | and enhance prices and create mo l nopoly.
 Lack of Def7niteness In the Statute
 The complaint is made of the stat ute that it is not sufficiently definite in its description of that which is for bidden to enable business men to avoid its violation The suggestion is that we may have a combination of two which may run on for years and that subsequently the at [ torney general may conclude that 1t was violation of the statute and that which was supposed by the containers to be innocent then turns out to be a in violation of the statute. The answer to this hypothetical case is that when men attempt to amass such stupendous capital as will enable them to suppress competition, control prices and establish monopoly they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such a thing without having it clearly in mind. If what they do is merely for the purpose of reducing the cost of production, without the thought ,f suppressing competition by use of the oigness of the plant they are creating, then they cannot be convicted at the time the union is made, nor can they be convicted later unless it happen that later on they conclude to SUD- press competition and take the usual methods for doing so and thus estab- ish for themselves a monopoly. They ,an in such case hardly complain if he motive which subsequently is dis ,losed is attributed by the court to the original combination!
 New Remedies Suggested.
 Much is said of the repeal of this 'tatute and of constructive legislation to accomplish the purpose md blaze a clear path for honest mer- .hants and business men to follow. It may be that such plan will be ,volved. but I submit that the discns- hons which Ihave been brought out in 'ecent days by the fear of the. con inued execution of the antitrust law lave produced nothing but giittaring and have offered no line ;, f distinction or rule of action as deA-