New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-19

tive OF business honesty or morality, ana
urge the establishment OF some legal line OF
separation by which criminal trusts ol
this kind can be punished, and they, on the
other hand. be permitted under the law 10
carry on their business. Now, the pubhC'
and especially the business public, ought 10
rid themselves Of the idea that such q ' dlsi
tinction is practicable or can be Introduces
into the statute. Certainly under the pres
ent antitrust law no such distinction eN
lists. II has been proposed. however. that
the word reasonable should be MADE d
part OF the statute. and then that II shouIo
be left TO the court TO say what Is Tea
sonable restraint OF trade. what II Iea-
sonable suppression of competition what
is a reasonable monopoly. j venture 70
think that this is 10 put into the hands Va
the court power impossible 10 exercise OH
any consistent principe which VIII lhsuse
the uniformity OF decision essential 10 lust
Judgment. IL is TO thrust upon the courts
a burden that they have no precedents 10
enable them TO carry and 10 give theiil a
power approaching the arbitrarE we ,'Sd IJi
OF which might involve our whole judlcla'
system in disaster
This paragraph has been quoted anu
spread on the record OF the Senate on tne
motion Of a Senator who considered this 10
be at variance with the decisions OF the Su-
preme Court. Instead Of being at variance
1t is in exact accord with those decisions
Critics Of the Court Answered.
Again. from those who have given. up
free competition asian economic torce tndt
ought to be encouraged or enforced, anu
who are utterly opposed to the spirit OF tne
antitrust law, we have frequently healu
the question. well, suppose you convict
those large combinations under the statute
what are you going to 90 ABOUT II. iOp
can, perhaps, send some men TO the penn
Tertiary for creating these comolhllI,ol'
which have cheapened the cost OF Proutuo
ton and given you most OF your torelsn
trade and much Of your prosperity, bui
what are YOU going TO do with the capltai
invested. the plant and the ORGANIZATION
You can ccniscate II and ruin your coui
try by q panic but you can't dlVlde suCil
combinations into their component parts
again, for the lines Of division nave dlsap-
peared into a common ownership
The court has met the issue and the
queries presented by the douoters ano
the scoffers. II has INDICATED tne
majesty Of the law, has ILLUSTRATED me
wonderful elasticity and sdaptabIlIty or
remedy by Injunction in equity, and
has at the same time manifested due
REGARD for the welfare Of the innocent
business men and the community az
LARGE, who, in a cataclysn1 caused by
the confiscation Of such enormous capt.
tai as is involved in these combinations
and a suspension of tho legitimate part
of their business, would be buried WIN
them in a common ruin.
The court has exhibited courage III
facing the necessary results in enforcing
the statute that, instead OF prompting an
attack on IT, ought to make every American
proud that we have such a tribunal II -
now enforcing it's decree against the stand
ard DIN Company and against the American
Tobacco Company, and u Is making tioSe
great combinations divide themselves into
actually competing parts under such pro
visions in the decree that an injunction
shall be constantly operative 10 prevent ~
contempt proceedings any assumption OF
the old relations Of the monopoly. Inns
was an easier matter in reference 10 the
Standard on Company. because il was
easv 10 divide ND the various companies
that we're united by the ownership OF STOCK
OF all the companies in a single holdlns
company. In the tobacco company the de-
cree could not be worked out so easily, ana
Il will re necessary 20 separate the prop
critics owned b. single companies ana L.
distribute these plants into dlnefent anu
differing Cwnerships in order 10 create
competition between them and meIlta.n
that competition by the power OF 4 conI'ilu-
ing Injunction against any future UNION: OF
anv agreement TO avoid future comDcJuoh.