The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1911-12-05

Htftt Aft'"tNHM MfNNNNI NtifN
It Haa been assumed thal ths pfea
ent pForata and common ownership
il nH these companies by former
stocsholde1s OF the trust would insure
q continuance of the same old single
control u 4H the companies into
ahieh he trust has by decree been
dtsinte6fated. This s. erroneous aaa
II based upon the assumed inencaey
and innocuuusness 0f Judicial iniunc.
lions The companies are enioined
from cooperation OF combiaatons
they have different managers. dIrec-
tors. purchasing and sales agents If
eli OF any Of the numerous stockhold-
ers. reaching into the thousands. al
tempt 10 secure concerted action OF
the companies With a view to the con
troll Of the market their number IS so
large that such an attempt could not
we'll be concealed and IT'S prime NOV
ers and all its participants would be
AZ once subject to contempt proceed
lugs and Imprisonment Of summary
character The immediate result Of
the present situation win necessarily
be activity By all the companies M.
der different managers. and then com
petition must follow. or there will
be activity by one company and stag
nation 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 Those critics who speak
9f this disinteeration III the trust -
A mere change of garments have not
giyen consideration TO the inevitable
working oi the decree and understand
title the personal danger OF attempt
ing to eyade or set at naught the sol.
smn Injunction Of court whose oh
iect Is made plain by the decree and
whose Exhibitions are set forth With
detail and comprehensiyenesa unex.
ampled IN the history Of equity iuris-
prudence
The effect or these two decisions has
led 10 DEGREES dissolving the combina
ton Of manufacturers Of electric lamps
a southern wholesale grocers' associa
ton. an interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions BY
the circuit court compelling dissolu
ton. and other combinations Of sim
liar history are now negotiating with
The department OF justice looking 70 q
disintegration by decree and reorgan
ization In accordance with law Il
seems possible to bring about these re-.
organizations without general business
disturbance.
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
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 Il 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 70 secure
economy IN production and reduc-
ton OF its cost. II is only when the
purpose or necessary effect Of the or
ganization and maintenance OF the
combination or the aggregation Of i'm
mense size are the sitting Of eompetl-
tion. actual and potential. and the en-.
hancing 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 business
plants necessarily eliminates competi-
tion between the units thus combined,
but this elimination Is In contravention
Of the statute only when the combina.
tion Is made for purpose Of ending this
particular competition Ia order 70 Sc
cure control OF. and enhance. prices
and create a monopoly.
Lack Of Defnlseness In the Statute.
The complaint is made OF the statute
hat It Is not sufficiently definite IN
its description Of that which is forbid
len. to enable business men to avoid
It's violation. The suggestion is. that
we may have combination of two
corporations. which may run on for
years. and that subsequently the attor-
ney general may conclude that il was
a violation of the statute. and that
which vas supposed by the eombiners
to be innocent then turns out to be a
combination in violation Of the stat
ute The answer to this hypothetical
case is that when men attempt to
amass stupendous capital as will en-
able them to suppress competition,
control prices and establish a monop.
oily they know the purpose Of their
acts Men do not do such a thing
without having It clearly In mind. II
what they DO is merely for the purpose
Of reducing the cost OF production.
without the thought or suppressing
competition by use Of the bigness Of
the plant they are creating. then they
cannot be convicted az the time the
union Is made. nor can they be con
/ yicted later. unless II happen that later
on they conclude 10 suppress competi
tion and take the usual methods for
doing SO, and thus establish for them