Evening journal., 1911-12-05

speak of this disintegration in the trust
rs a mere change of garments have not
given consideration to the inevitable
of the decree and understand
little the personal danger Of attempt
ing to evade or set al naught the sol
emn Injunction OF a court whose object
Is made plain by the decree and whose
Inhibitons are set forth with a detail
and comprehensivenes unexampled in
the history Of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Reorsanizations Of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect OF these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton of manufacturers Of electric
lamps. a southern wholesale grocers
an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust with direc-
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 10y decree and re-
organization In accordance with law.
1t seems possible TO bring about these
reorganizations without general busi-
ness disturbance.
Movement For Repeal Of the Anti
trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act Is
seen 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 a 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 stiAing Of competition. actual and
potential, and the enhancing of prices
and establishing n monopoly that the
statute is violated. Mere size is no
sin against the law. The merging OF
two or moro business plants necessari-
ly eliminates competition between the
units thus combined, but this elimina-
tion is in contravention Of the statute
only when the combination is made fol
purpose OF ending this particular com
petition in order to secure control oi
and enhance prices and create a mo
nopoly.
Lack of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the stat
ute that it is not sufficiently definite
in it's 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 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 violation OF the statute
The answer TO this hypothetical case
is that when men attempt to amass
such stupendous capital as WIN enable
them to suppress competition, control
prices and establish a monopoly they
know the purpose Of their acts. Men
do not do such thing without having
It 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
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.
Now Remedies Suggested.
Much Is said Of the repeal OF thll
statute and Of constructive Legislation
intended 10 accomplish the purpose
and blaze clear path for honest mer
chants and business men TO follow. Il
may be that such a plan will bs
evolved. but I submit that the discus
sions which have been brought out II
recent days by the fear OF the con
tinued execution OF the antitrust Law
have produced nothing but glitterinl
generalitles and have offered no lin,
OF distinction or rule Of action as def
mite and as clear as that which the su
preme court itself lays down in en-
forcing the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed, No
Repeal or Amendment.
see no objection. and indeed 7 car
see decided advantages. In the enact
ment Of a law which shall describ,
and denounce methods OF competition
which are unfair and are badges Of thi
unlawful purpose denounced In th,
antitrust law. The attempt and pur
pose TO suppress a competitor by un
/ derselling him at a price so unprofita
BILE as to drive him out Of business o
the making Of exclusive contracts witt
customers under which they are re
quired to give up association with 9th
er manufacturers and numerous kin
dred methods for sitting competition
and effecting monopoly should be de
scribed with sufficient accuracy IN
criminal statute on the one hand 4
enable the government TO shorten u