The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-05-30
NEW IMPORT TO
MONOPOLY PLEA
OIL DECISION. Is IN LINE. WITH
BELL TELEPHONE COM
PANY'S CONTENTION

WASHlNGToN. ID. c., May 60
The decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in the Standard Oil case
Is regarded as vitality important to
the Bell Telephone interests which
IN recent years have boldly declared
that a monopoly of the telephone bus
| mess was To be desired. The "rea-
sonabie" restraint OF trade recognized
by the decision may prove to cover
the telephone situation to the entire
satisfaction of the American Tele-
phone q Telegraph Company
1t has been known that the Bell
interests 10y reason of their magni-
tude have been under scrutiny. The
statement about the decision attrih-
uted to President Vail was this. "Rea
son has been read into the Sherman
law and reason is always certain to
temper too literal Interpretation of
the statutes -
The annual report of President
Theodore y. Vail to his seventy thou
sand stockholders appears now, in
the light Of the Standard Oil decision,
To be almost prophetic Of the nature
of the decision. A close com parison
Of President Wallis statements con-
corning monopoly and competition in
his field with the opinion concerning
reasonable and unreasonable control
of business has disclosed a pertinenCe
in President Walls utterances not pre-
Viousiy given attention In the depart
ment of justice The exhaustive dis
cussion which amounted to a brief. Of
monopoly in the telephone field now
has assumed the utmost Importance
in the department.
Mr. Vail prefaced his remarks CON
corning the disadvantages OF cempe-
ttion with "A Hat approval of regula-
ton Of monopolies. such as he claims
the Hell Telephone interests should
have. 10y the statement that public
control of public service corporations
by permanent commissions has come
and come to stay" lie said.
Those few things which, in the
growth Of civilization, and particu-
larry hv the increase Of urban popu-
lation. we're OF general Use and neces-
sity for all those few things in which
the masses Of the public had an in
terest IN receiving regularly and rea-
sonahiy soon became the object of
control or regulation. and here was
the beginning Of and reason for State
control and regulation or state own
ership,"
Getting down to the subject OF COM
petition versus monopoly, MIR. Vail s
report. from the corporate side. Is
a significant contribution to the prob
lem raised by the Standard oil de-
cislon.
Effective aggressive competition,
and regulation anu control are incou
sistent with each other, and cannot be
had a the same time he said. Con-
troll or regulation, TO be effective,
means publicity! it means mi~pubiic
discussion and consideration before
action II means deIiberation, non dis
elimination. IL means everything
which is the opposite OF and inconsist-
Eent with effective competition.
Com petition aggre ssive, effective
com petition--means strife, Industrial
welfare; il means contention, ii often
times means taking advantage Of or
resorting t. any means that the con
j science Of the contestants or the de
gree Of the enforcement Of the laws
win permit TO make com petition
effective great and uncontrolled iati-
itude Of action is necessary, action
must be prompt and secret
/ Aggressive competition means du-
plleatlon OF plant and investment The
ultimate object Of such competition
( is the possession OF the field wholly or
partially; therefore 1t means either
Ultimate combination on such basis
and with such prices as will cover
past losses or II means loss OF return
OH investment, an eventual loss Of
! capltal However IT results all costs
jof aggressive. uncontrolled compact
! ton are eventually borne, directly or
Indirectly, by the public
I Competition which liz not agrees
slNe, presupposes cooperative action,
understandings. agreements. with re-
suit in general uniformity or harmony
iof action, which. In fact, IL not COM
/ petition, but is com bination, unten-
latt@.-f bat ss7F TIC tffsssf sse+,tieie.s'4@
/ All Of which. OF course relates to
Telephone monopoly, but bears equally
we'll on score OF other cases The
hub Of the whole thing bears directly
upon the Standard Oh case. and from
the viewpoint OF the public utility
manager, That was stated thus:
1t is shown that the American Tel
ephone and Telegra phi Company is not
IN the accepted sense trust, nor has
III been built up by ahsorb bling compel
Ing companies, or In restraint Of brs-
mess, That while the Bell system ia
made UP of separate corporations
these corporations are not. never have
been and never could be in compe-
ttttion, and also that under any sys
tenn Of organization OF under one own
ership. separate compa MES are neces-
sary for purposes of State jurisdic.
ton"