The Washington times., 1911-12-05

the proceeding In equity Is a specific
remedy to stop the operation Of the
trust by injunction and prevent the fu-
violation Of the statute.
Effectiveness of Decree.
venture to say that not in the his
tory Of American law has a decree more
effective for such a purpose been en-
tered by a court than that against
Noyes said In his judgment approving
the decree:
THE extent, to which 1t has been
necessary to tear apart this combination
attendant burdens ought to demonstrate
that the Federal antitrust statute is
drastic statute which accomplishes ef-
fective results; which, SO long as II
obeyed. and which cannot be disobeyed
without incurring far-reaching penal
ties. And, on the other hand, the Sue
cessful reconstruction of this organiza-
ton should teach that the effect of en-
forcing this statute is not to destroy.
but to reconstruct: not to demolish.
but to recreate in accordance with the
conditions which the Congress has de-
clared shall exist among the people OF
the United States"
1t has been assumed that the present
pro rata and common ownership In all
these companies by former stockholders
Of the trust would insure q continuance
of the same old single control of all the
decree been disintegrated. This Is err
roneous and is based upon the assumed
inefficacy and innocuousness of judicial
injunctions. The companies are enjoin-
ed from cooperation or combination;
they have different managers, directors,
purchasing and sales agents. If all or
many of the numerous stockholders,
reaching into the thousands, attempt to
with a view to the control Of the
market. their number Is SO large that
such an attempt could not well be
concealed, and its prime movers and all
its participants would be at once sub
ject to contempt proceedings and i'm
prisonment OF summary character. The
Immediate result Of the present situa-
ton will necessarily be activity by all
the companies under different managers.
and then competition must follow, or
there will be activity by one company
and stagnation by another. Only short
time will inevitably lead to a change In
ownership OF the stock, as all oppor-
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 attempting to evade
or set at naght the solemn injunction OF
a court whose object Is made plain py
the decree and whose inhibitfons are set
forth with a detail and comprehensive
ness unexampled In the history OF equity
Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Keorganizations.
The effect Of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton of manufacturers Of electric lamps,
q southern wholesale grocers' >associa-
ton, an interlocutory decree against
the Powder trust with directions by the
circuit court compelling dissolution, and
are now negotiating with the Depart
ment Of Justice looking to a disintegra-
ton by decree and reorganization In ac-
cordance with law. 1t seems possible to
bring about these reo:ganizations with
out general business disturbance.
Movement for Repeal of Law
But now that the antitrust act is to
be effective for the accomplishment Of
the purpose Of its enactment. we are
met by a cry from many different quar-
ters for its repeal. 1t is said to be OBJ
structive of business progress, to be an
attempt to restore old-fashioned meth
small units, and to make impossible
those useful combinations Of capital ana
the reduction of the cost Of production
that are essential to continued prosper
ity and normal growth.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
Court makes clear tnat there Is nothing
In the statute which condemns combina-
tions of capital or mere bigness of plant
organized to secure economy in produc-
ton and reduction Of its cost. 1t Is
only when the purpose or necessary ef-
feet of the organization and maintenance
of the combination or the aggregation of
immense size are the sitting of competi-
ton, actual and potential, and the en-
hancing of prices and establishing a
monopoly, that the statute Is violated.
Mere size Is no sin against the law. The
merging of two or more business plants
necessarily eliminates competition be-
tween the units thus combined, but this
elimination Is In contravention of the
statute only when the combination is
made for the purpose of ending this
particular competition in order to secure
control OF, and enhance. prices and
create a monopoly.
Lack of Defniteness.
The complaint Is made Of the statute
that It is not sufficiently definite in it's
description of that which is forbidden
to enable business men to avoid its vio-
laton. The suggestion Is, that we may
have a combination of two corporations,
which may run on for years, and that
subsequently the Attorney General may
conclude that II was a violation of the
statute. and that which was supposed
by the combiners to be innocent then
turns out to be a combination in viola
tion of the statute. The answer to this
hypothetical case Is that when men at
tempt to amass such stupendous capita
as will enable them to suppress compe-
tition, control prices and establish a
monopoly. they know the purpose of
their acts. Men do not do such a thin
without having II clearly in mind. 7"
what they do Is merely for the purpose
of reducing the cost of production, with
out the thought of suprressing competi-
ton by use of the bigness of the plant
they are creating, then they can not
convicted at the time the union Is made
nor can they be convicted later, unless
II happen that later on they conclude tc
suppress competition and take the usual
methods for sdoing SO. and thus estab
lish for themselves a monopoly. They
Can. in such a case. hardly complain II
the motive which subsequently is dis
closed Is attributed by the court to the
original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said of the repeal of this
statute and Of constructive legislation
intended tn accomnliSh the nurnoSa N