Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1911-12-05


portunity for continued co-operatlol
must disappear Those critics wht
sneak of this disintegration in the trus'
as a mere change of garments have mol
given consideration to the inevitable
working of the decree and understand
little the personal danger of attempt
ing TO evaGe or set at naught the sol
emn Injunction of a court whose obJecl
is made plain by the decree and whose
hhibitions are set forth with a detail
and comprehensiveness unexampled ID
the history of equity Jurisprudence
Voluntary Reorganizations OF Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect of these two decisions has
led to decrees dissolving the comblna-
tion of manufacturers of electric
lamps. a southern wholesale grocers
association, an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust, with direc-
tions by the circuit court compelling
dissolution, and other combinations OF
similar history are now negotiating
with the department of justice looking
to a disintegration by decree and re-
organization in accordance with law
1t seems possible to bring about these
reOrganizations without general busl-
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 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
ioned methods Of destructive competi-
tion 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 sitting of competition, actual and
hO hnv nf tNpiTnG
and establishing a monopoly that the
statute is violated. Mere size is no
sin against the law. The merging of
two or more 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 for
purpose of ending this particular COM
petition in order to secure control of
md enhance prices and create mo-
lOpoly.
Lack of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the stat
lte that it is not sufficiently definite
Il its description of that which is for
hidden to enable business men to avoid |
is violation. The suggestion is that
We may have a combination of two
which may run ON for
ears and that subsequently the at
orney general may conclude that it
ras a violation of the statute and that
rhich was supposed by the combiners
D be innocent then turns out to be a
in violation of the statute.
he answer TO this hypothetical case
that when men attempt to amass
uch stupendOus capital as will enable
hem to suppress competition, control
rices and establish a monopoly they
now the purpose Of their acts. Men
o not do such a thing without having
clearly in mind. If what they do is
lerely for the purpose of reducing the
)st of production. without the thought
suppressing competition by use of the
Igness of the plant they are creating,
len they cannot be convicted at the
me the union is made, nor can they
? convicted later unless it happen
lat later on they conclude to sup
Tess competition and take the usual
ethods for doing so and thus estab-
'h for themselves a monopoly. They
IN in such case hardly complain if
e motive which subsequently is dis
osed is attributed by the court to the
iginal combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said Of the repeal Of this
atute and Of constructive legislation
tended to accomplish the purpose
Id blaze clear path for honest mer-
ants and business men to follow. II ,
ay be that such a plan will be ,
olved, but ! submit that the discus- ,
)ns which have been brought ont in
cent days by the fear Of the con-
lued execution Of the antitrust law
we produced nothing but glittering !
neralities and have offered no line
distinction or rule Of action as def. =
te and as clear as that which the su- :
eme court itself lays down in en- .
rcing the statute.
Ppiemental Legislation Needed. Not {
Repeal or Amendment. r
see no objection. and indeed 7 can
decided advantages, in the enact
mt OF n law which eb,rt -,