The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1911-12-08

among the people OF the United
States"
common-stock Ownership.
It has been assumed that the pres
ent pro-rata and common ownership
in all these companies by former
stockholders of the trust would insure
a continuance Of the same old single
control of all the companies into
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This is erroneous and
is based upon the assumed ineficacy
and innocuousness of judicial injunc-
lions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination;
they have different managers, direc-
tors, purchasing and sales agents. II
all or any of the numerous stockhold-
ers, reaching into the thousands, at
tempt to secure concerted action OF
the companies with view to the con-
troll of the market, their number Is so
large that such an attempt could not
well be concealed and its prime NOV
ers and all its participants would be
at once subject to contempt proceed
ings and Imprisonment of summary
character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies I'M
der different managers, and then COM
petition must follow, or there will
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another. Only short time
will inevitably lead to a change IN
ownership of the stock, as all oppor-
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear. Those critics who speak
of this disintegration In the trust as
a 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 q court whose Cd
ject is made plain by the decree ana
whose inhibitions are set forth with
detail and comprehensiveness unex-
ampled in the history of equity juris-
prudence.
The effect of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton Of manufacturers of electric lamps,
a southern wholesale grocers' associa-
ton, an interlocutory 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 a
iCfn hx, nd
ization in accordance with law. 1t
seems possible to bring about these re-
organizations without general business
disturbance
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
Law.
But now that the antitrust act is
seen to be effective for the accomplish
ment of the purpose of its enactment,
we are met by cry from many differ
ent quarters for its repeal. 1t is said
to be obstructive of business progress,
to be an attempt to restore old-fash-
toned methods of destructive competi-
ton 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 moth
ing in the statute which condemns
combinations of capital or mere big
ness of plant organized to secure
economy in production and a reduc-
ton Of it's cost. 1t iseRly when the
purpose or necessary effect of the or
ganization and maintenance of the
combination or the aggregation of i'm
mense size are the sitting of competi-
ton, actual and potential, and the en-
HANGING of prices and establishing
monopoly, that the statute is violated.
Mere size is no sin against the law.
plants necessarily eliminates competi-
ton between the units thus combined,
but this elimination is in contravention
of the statute only when the combina-
ton is made for purpose of ending this
particular competition in order to Sc
cure control of, and enhance. prices
and create monopoly.
Lack of Definiteness in the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
that it is not sufficiently definite in
its description of that which is forbid
den, to enable business men to avoid
it's violation. The suggestion is, that
we may have a combination of two
corporations, which may run on fo-
,,oorc ,nJ +bof e,,hcaouoptIy tbo o+to,,
ney general may conclude that it was
a violation of the statute, and that
which was supposed by the combiners
to be innocent then turns out to be
combination in violation of the stat
rte The answer to this hypothetical
case Is that when men attempt to
amass stupendous capital as will en-
able them to suppress competition.
control prices and establish a monop-
oily they know the purpose of their
acts. Men do not do such a thing
without having it clearly in mind II
what they do is merely for the purpose
of reducing the cost of production,
without the thought of suppressing
competition by use of the bigness of
the plant they are creating, then they
cannot be convicted at the time the
lpion is made, nor can they be con-
Wcted later, unless it happen that later
ON they conclude to suppress competi-
tlon and take the usual methods for
Doing so, and thus establish for them
selves monopoly. They can. in such
case, hardly complain If the motive
which subsequently is disclosed is at
tributed by the court to the original