Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-12-05

have not cunhintf ION 10 the newt
able working Of the decree and un.
derstand little the personal danger OF
attempting 20 eyade or set NJ naugh,
the solemn injunction Of court whose
object h made plain by the decree and
whose lnhlbltions ave set forth with
detail and compreh1 nslveness unex.
nmpled In the history OF equity iuris-
prudence.
Voluntary Rsorganrations Of other
trusts q, Hand.
Tho effect OF these two decisions
has led to DEGREES dissolylng the com
Diantlon OF manuiaCturers OF electric
lamps, southern Wholesale grocers'
association. an interlocutory decree
against the Powder trust with dlrec.
tiOns BY the circuit court compelling
dissolution, and other Combinations OF
similar history are now negotiating
with the department OF Justice look.
ing 20 a iisinlearaiion by decree and
REORGANIZATION In accordance with
law. II seems possible 10 bring about
these reorgnnlkations without general
business disturbance
Movement for Repeal OF the Anti
Trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act IN
seen 10 be effective for the accom-.
plishment OF the purpose OF its enact
ment. We are met by a cry from many
different quarters for its repeal. II is
said 10 be obstructive OF business
progress, To he an attempt Ia restore
old fashioned methods OF destructive
competition between small units, and
10 make impossible those useful com.
binatlone OF capital and the reduction
OF the cost OF production that are es-
sential 10 continued prosperity and
normal growth.
In the recent decisions the supreme
court makes clear that there II notn.
Ing In the statute which condemns
combinations OF capital or mere big
ness Of plant organized TO secure
economy IN production and a reduc-
tlon OF its cost. Il Is only when the
purpose or necessary effect OF the or
sanitation and maintenance OF the
combination or the aggregation OF i'm
titioR, actual and potential, and tie
enhancing Of prices aud establishing
a monopoly that the statute II vio-
lnted. Mere alxe IL no sin against the
law. The merging Oh two or more
UWHAnNHN IAMNNM NNNltnrHNAN NNlANtU1ANu
competition between the units thus
combined. hut this elimination IL In
contravention OF the statute only
purpose Of ending this particular com.
petition In order 10 secure control or,
and enhance. price and create a mon
opoly
lack Of Dchnlssness In the statute.
The complaint II made OF the stat
ute that Il In not suinciently definite
| In its description OF that which ~ Tor.
hidden. 20 enable business men To
avoid IT. violation. The suggestion Is.
that we may have a combination OF
two corporations, which may run on
Tor years. and that subsequently, the
attorney general may conclude that
ii was a violation OF the statute. and
that which was supposed By the COM
Diners 10 be innocent then turns out
To he combination IN violation or
the stature Tho answer 10 this NY
pothctical case IL that when men at.
tempt 10 amass such stupendous cap
ital as will enable them to suppress
Compel iilon, control prices and es-
ltabliah a moBopo4y, they know the
lpurpoee OF their nats Men do not do
such a thing without having II clearly
in mind. u what they do Is merely
for the purpose OF reducing the cost
sof production. without the thought OF
lsuppregslng eompetion by use OF the
bieness OF the plant they are creating.
then they can MOI be convicted at the
time the union Is made, nor can they
be- convicted later.nun ess Il happen
that later on they conclude TO sup
press competition and take the usual
methods for doing so, and thus estaD-
lish for themselves q monopoly. They
can, In such n case. hardly complain
II the motive which subsequently "
disclosed II attributed By the court Ia
the original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much IL said of the repeal Of this
statute and OF constructive legislation
intended 10 accomplish the purpose
and blaze clear path for honest mer-
chants and business men To follow. i,
may be- that such a plan will be evoly.
ed. but | submit that the discussions
which have been brought out In re-
cent days BY the fear Of the continued
execution OF the antitrust law have
4 produced nothing but gil ,oring gen.
etalilies ani have offered no line OF
distinction or rule ~ action as definite
and as clear as that which the SUI
lpreme court Itself lays down In On
iorcing the statute
Supplemental Legislation Needed
Not Repeal or Amendment.
! see no objectlon--and indeed can
ace decided adyantages--in the en-
4 actmeni OF law which shall describe
and denOance methods or competition
which are unfair and are badges OF
the unlawful purpose denounced N
the antitrust Law. The attempt and
purpose TO suppress n competitor BY
under-sclllng him AT price so unprot
table as TO drive him out OF business
Nor the making OF exclusive contracts
with customers under which they are
acquired 10 give 90 association with
losheF1 manufacturers, and numerous
IkindFdl methods Tor allfilng competi-
( lsloR aid eifectlng monopoly, shouit
u be described with surfcient accurac,
1m,a. crlnnnpl statute on the one hanC
N7EyvlDl7fS