The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-12-05


In ownership Of the stock, az all op-
porumity for continued cooperation
must disappear. Those critics who
speak Of this dlslntegraiion IN the trust
as mere change OF garments have not
given consideration 10 the inevitable
working OF the decree and understand
little the personal danger Of attempt.
ing to evade or set nj naught the sol
emn injunction of court whose object
is made plain by the decree and whose
inhibitions are set forth with a detail
and comprehensiyencss unexampled in
the history of sqaily Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Aeorssnizasons Of Other
Trusts AZ ssf4and h.
The effectof these two decisIosf3 has
led to decrees dissolving the cJmblna.
lion OF manufacturers OF electric
lamps, southern wholesale grocers'
association an iuterlocotory decree
against the powder trust, with drec-
lions by the circnlt court compelling
dissolution, and othcr combinations Of
q similar history are now negotiating
With the department OF Justice looking
q disintegratiOn by decree and re
organization in accordance with law
II seems possible TO bring about these
reorga nizations without general busi.
ness disturbance.
Movement For Repeal OF tho Anti.
trust Law.
Iut now that the anti trust act is
seen 10 be effective for the accomplish
meut OF the purpose Of its enactment
we are met by cry from many differ
eat quarters for its repeal. II Is said
10 be obstructive Of business progress,
10 he an attempt to restore old fash
toned methods OF destructive conpeti-
lion 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 ana normal growth
In he 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
pmy in production and reduction OF
its cost 1t is only when the purpose
3f necessary effect of the organization
ana maintenance OF the combination
or the aggregation of immense size are
the stihing of competition, actual and
potential. and the enhancing OF prices
and establishing a monopoly that the
statute is violated Mere size Is no
sin against the law. The merging OF
two o. more business plants necessar
~ eliminates competition between the
units thus combined, but this elimina-
iiou is in contrayentiOn Of the statute
only when the combination is made for
purpose OF ending this particular COM
petition in order to secure control OF
aid enhance prices ana create mo
uopoly
Lack Of Defniteness In tho Statute.
The complaint is made Of the stat
lte that ii is not sufficiently defiAlte |
hi its description OF that which Is for |
1idden to enable business men to avoid |
rs violation The suggestion Is that |
We may have combination Of two |
.Orporations which may run on for |
years and that subsequently the at |
oruey general may conclude that 1t |
vas violation Of the,staWte and that
which was supposed by the combiners
o he innocent then turns out to be a
in violation of the statute.
Ihc answer to this hypothetical case
$ that when men attempt to amass
uch stupend0us capital as viii enable
hem 10 suppress competition, control
IiceS and establish monopoly they
now the purpose Of their acts. Men
clearly IN mind If what they do Is
nercly for the purpose of reducing the
ost 0f production, without the thought
+ suppressing competition by use of the
isness of the plant they are creating,
hen they cannot be convicted at the
iine the union is made, nor can they
G convicted later unless it happen
hat later ON they conclude TO sup
ress competition and take the usual
lethods for doing so and thus estab-
sh for themselves a monopoly. They
an in such case hardly complain II
De motive which subsequently is dis
osed is attributed By the court to the
riginal combination
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said Of the repeal of this I
.atute and of constructive legislation {
ltended to accomplish the purpose
nd blaze Il clear path for honest mer
lants and business men to follow. II
!ay be that such a plan will be-
tolyed but | submit that the discus {
ons which have been brought ont In {
'ccnt days by the fear OF the con S
nued execution OF the antitrust law q
aye produced nothing but glltterlng 1
.neralities and have offered no line t
distinction or rule OF action as def c
te and as clear as that which the su '
'eme court itself lays down ia en- C.
rclng the statute a
ipplementaI Legislation Needed, Not !
Repeal or Amendment
see no objection, and indeed I can
Q decided advantages, in the enact
ent OF law which shall describe a
ID denounce methods OF competition 81
lich are unfair and are badges Of the II
lawful purpose denounced in the c,