Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-12-05

attempt coHiG not well b@ eencenied.
ard itA prirns movers and nil ats partAc-
ipaats would be at once subject to con
tempt proceedings and imprisonment
OF D summary character. The imxzsedi.
ate result OF the present situation will
necessarily be activity by sli the con
panies under different managers, and
then competition must follow or there
will be activity by company ans
st. nation by another. Only n short
sn,a will inevitably lead to q change
in ownership of the stock, ag all op-
p~ortunity for continued cooperation
must disappear. Those critics who
speak of this disintegration In the trust
as q 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 eyade or set at naught the sol
enn Injunction of a court whose object
is made plain by the decree and whose
inhibitions are set forth with a detail
and comprehensiveness unexampled In
the history of equity Jurisprudence.
voluntary Ecor5snizasteN1 ~ OsRsr
Trusts at Hand.
The effect of these two dscisions has
led to DEGREES dissolvfng the combtna-
tion of manufacturers Of electric
lamps, a southern wholesale grocsrS
association, an in~teriocutory decree
against the powder trust, with dirsc.
tions by the circuit court compelling
dissolution, and other combinations Of
a similar history are now negotiating
with the department of justice looking
to a disintegration by decree and re-
organization In accordance with law.
1t seem possible to bring about these
reorganizations without general bust.
ness disturbance.
Movement For Repeal Of tho Anti
trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act is
een 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 its 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-
tinued 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 econ
omy In production and q reduction Of
its cost. 1t is only when the purpose
or necessary effect of the organization
and maintenance OF the combination
or the aggregation Of immense size are
the sitting Of competition. actual and
potential, and the enhancing of prices
and establishing a moaopoiy that the
statute is violated. Mere size La no
sin against the law. The merging OF
two or more business plants ~neeessari-
ly eliminates competition between the
units thus combined, but this elimina-
ton Is In c~ontrayention OF the statute
only when the combination is made for
purpose of ending this particular COM
petition In order to secure control of
and enhance prices and create a mo
nopoly.
Lack of Dehniteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the stat
ute that 1t is not sufficiently definite
in its description of that which is for
hidden to enable business men to avoid
Its violation. The suggestion Is that
we may have a combination of two
corporations which may run on for
years and that subsequently the at
torney general may conclude that 1t
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 violation OF the statute.
The answer to this hypothetical cas-
is that when men attempt to amass
such stupendous capital as will enable
them to suppress competition, control
prices and establish a monopoly they
know the purpose of their acts. Men
do not do such a thing without having
1t clearly in mind, If what they do Is
merely for the purpose of reducing the
cost of production, without the thought
of suppressing 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 convicted later unless 1t happen
that later on they conclude to sup
press competition and take the usual
methods for doing SO and thus estab-
fish for themselves a monopoly. They
can In such a case hardly complain Ii
the motive which subsequently Ia 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 to accomplish the purpose
and blaze a clear path for honest mer-
chants and business men to follow. 1t
may be that such a plan will be
evolved, but I submit that the discus
sions which have been brought out In
recent days by the fear of the con-
tinued execution of the antitrust law
have produced nothing but ~glitterlng
~generalities and have offered no line
of distinction or rule OF action as def
mite and as clear as that which the SUI
preme court Itself lays down in en-
forcing the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed, Not
Repeal or Amendment.