Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1911-12-08
UP TRUST PROBLEM.
)nly Matter Touched On In President S
Message to Congress
Legislation to Strengthen Present
Statutes Is Recommended---Defen Stand
ard Oil and Tobacco Decis ons

it's unlawful dominion. Under the de-
cree these defendants will hOld amounts
of stock in the various distributee COM
panies anging from Al per cent. as a
maximum to 2SR per cent. as a
except in the case Of one small
the Porto Rican Tobacco company, in
which they will hold 40 per cent. The
Twenty-Five individual defendants are en-
Joined for three years from buying any
stock except from each other, and the
group is thus prevented from extending
its control during that period All parties
to the suit, and the new companies who
are made parties, are enjoined perpetual
ly from in any way effecting any com
bination between any of the companies
in violation of the statute by
way Of resumption of the old trust. Each
Of the fourteen companies Is enjoined
from acquiring stock in any of the others.
All these companies are enjoined from
having common directors or officers, or
common buying or selling agents, or COM
mon Offices, or lending money to each
other.
Size of New Companies.
Objection was made by certain indie
pendent tobacco companies that this set
Element was unjust because 1t left com
panieS with very large capital In active
business, and that the settlement that
would be effective to put all on an equal
ity would be a division of the capital and
plant of the trust into small fractions In
amount more nearly equal to that OF each
of the Independent companies. This con-
tention results from a misunderstanding
of the antitrust law and its purpose.
1t is not intended thereby to prevent the
accumulation of large capital in business
enterprises in which such a combination
can secure reduced cost of production,
sale and distribution. 1t Is directly
against such an aggregation OF capital
nr1Ny "hnr tie nIlrnnSa Ia that OF SflftlnG
competition, enhancing or controlling
prices and establishing a monopoly. III
we shall have by the decree defeated these
purposes and restored competition be-
tween the large units into which the cap
ital and plant have been divided, we
shall have accomplished the useful pur-
pose of the statute.
Co]nfiscation Not the Purpose of the
Statute.
1t Is not the purpose of the statute to
confiscate the property and capital of the
offending trusts. Methods of punishment
by fine or imprisonment of the individual
Offenders, by fine of the corporation, or
by forfeiture of It's goods in t~ransporta-
ton. are provided, but the proceeding in
equity is a specific remedy to stop the
operation of the trust by injunction and
prevent the future use of the plant ana
capital in violation of the statute.
l venture to say that not in the history
Of American law has a decree more eff
fective for such a purpose been entered
by q court than that against the Tobacco
trust.
Common-Stock Ownership.
1t has been assumed that the present
pro-rata and common ownership In all
these companies by FORMER stockholders
of the trust would insure a continuance
of the same old single control of all the
companies into which the trust has by
decree been disintegrated. This is err
roneous and is based upon the assumed in
efficacy and innocuOusness of judicial IN
functions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination; they
have different managers, directors, pur-
chasing and sales agents. If all or any
of the numerous stockholders, reacnlng
into the thousands, attempt to secure
concerted action of the companies with a
view to the control of the market, their
number is SO large that such an attempt
could not well be concealed and its prime
movers and all its participants WOuld be
at once subject to contempt proceedings
and imprisonment of a summary charac-
ter. The immediate result of the present
situation will necessarily be activity by
all the companies under different man
ayers and then competition must follow,
or there will be activity by one company
and sta gnation 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.
Movement for Repeal of the Anti-Trus
Law.
But now that the antitrust act is seen
to be effective for the accomplishment of
the purpose of its enactment, we are met
by a cry from many different quarters
for its repeal. 1t is said to be obstructive
of business progress. to be an attempt TO
restore old-fashioned methods of de-
ctr,,ctiy-a cnr,netition between small units.
and to make impossible those useful com
binations Of capital and the reduction of
the cost of production that are essential
to continued prosperity and normal
growth.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
court makes clear that there is nothing
in the statute which condemns combina-
lions of capital or mere bigness or plant
organized to secure economy in produc-
ton and a reduction of it's cost. 1t is only
when the purpose or necessary effect of
the organization and maintenance of the
combination or the aggregation of i'm
mense size are the sitting Of competition,
actual and potential, and the enhancing
of prices and establishing a monopoly,
that the statute is violated. Mere size
is no sin against the law. The merging
of two or more bushes plants necessarily
eliminates competition between the units
thus combined, but this elimination is in
Contravention of the statute only when
the combination Is made FOR purpose OF
ndin his particular competition in or
der to secure 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 forbidden, to
enable business men to avoid its viola
ton. The suggestion is, that we may
have a combination of two corporations,
which may run on for years, and that
subsequently the attorney general may
conclude that it was a violation of the
statute and that which was supposed by
the combiners 10 be inocent then turns
out to be a combination in violation of
the statute. The answer to this hypo-
thetical case is that when men attempt
to amass s~tupendous 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 it
clearly in mind.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said Of the repeal Of this stat
ute and of constructive legislation intend