The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1911-12-07
among TIE people of the United
Statpln |
Commensurate Ownership.

In all these companies by former
stockholders Of the trust would insure
q continuance of the same old single
control Of all the companies into
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This is and
Is based upon the assumed ineficacy
and innocuousness of judicial iniunc-
tons. The companies are e~njoined
from cooperation or combination;
they have different managers, direc-
tors, purchasing and sales agents. If
all or any of the numerous ~stockhold'
ers, reaching into the thousands, at
tempt TO secure concerted action of
the companies with a view to the con-
troll Of the market, their number Is so
large that such an attempt could not
we'll be concealed and its prime NOV
ers and all its participants would be
at once subject to contempt proceed
ings and Imprisonment of a summary
character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies un-
der different managers, and then com
petition must follow, or there Will
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another. Only a 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 d~1sintegration 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 a court whose Cd
ject is made plain by the decree and
whose inhibitions are set forth with a
detail and comprehensiveness unex
ampled in the history Of equity Jurls'
prudence.
The effect Of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina'
ton Of manufacturers OF electric lamps,
a southern wholesale grocers' assoc!a'
ton, an ~interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions by
the circuit court compelling dissolu
ton, and other combinations of a sim
liar history are now negotiating with
the department Of justice looking to a
d~isintegration by decree and reorgan
ization in accordance with law. II
seems possible to bring about these re
organizations without general business
disturbance.
Movement for Repeal of the Anti-Trus,
Law.
BuE now that the antitrust act is
seer to be effective for the accomplish
ment of the purpose of its enactment
We are met by a cry from many differ
ent quarters for it's 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
bnued 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 its cost. 1t is only 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 n 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 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 a 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, tina,
we may have a combination of two
corporations. which may run on fcl
years, and that subsequently the attor
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
ute. The answer to this Hypothetical
case Is that when men attempt tc
amass stupendous capital as will en-
able them to suppress competition
control prices and establish a monop
oily they know the purpose of theil
acts. Men do not do such q 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 suppressine
competition by use of the bigness Of
the plant they are creating, then they
cannot be convicted at the time the
union is made, nor can they be con
victed later, unless it happen that later
on they conclude to suppress competi
ton and take the usual methods fol
doing so. and thus establish for them
selves a monopoly. They can, in such
q ease hardly comnIaip n tho motive