The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1911-12-07


speak of this disintegration in the trust
given consideration to the inevitable
working of the decree and understand
little the personal danger Of attempt
ing to evade or set at naught the SOL
emn injunction of conrt whose object
is made plain by the decree AMI wllnse-
1nhibitionS are set furth with detaih
and comprehenSiveile>S unpXampled iD
the history of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Reorganizations of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect Of these two decisions h;ls,
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton Of manufacturers of electric
lamps. a southern wholesale grocers'
association. an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust. with dire.-
lions 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 bust,
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 it's repeal. 1t is said
to be obstructive of business progress.
to be an attempt to restore old fash
toned methods of destructive cOmpeti-
impossible those useful combinations
of capital and the reduction of the cost
/ Of production that are essential to con-
/ tinued prosperity and normal growth.
t In the recent decisions the supreme
/ court makes clear that there is nOth-
: 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
it's 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 monopoly that the
statute is violated. Mere size is no
sin against the law The merging OF
two or more business plants necessari-
~ eliminates competition between the
units thus combined. but this elimina-
ton is in contra vention of the statute
only when the combination is made for
purpose of ending this particular COM
petition in order to secure control or
and enhance prices and create 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
it's violation. The suggestion is tina:
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
-
combination in violation of the statute
The answer to this hypothetical case
is that when men attempt to amass
such stupendous capital as will enable
them to suppress competition. control
prices and establish monopoly they
know the purpose of their acts. Men
do not do such a 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 SURPRISING competition by use OF the
bigness of the plant they are creating
then they cannot be convicted at the
time the union IS madeA, nos can they
be convicted later unless it 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 i!
the motive which subsequently is 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. Il
may be that such plan will be
evolved. but | 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 glitterins
generalities and have offered no line
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 car
see decided advantages. In the enact
ment of law which shall describe
and denounce methods of competition
which are unfair and are badges of the
unlawful purpose denounced in the
antitrust law The attempt and pur
pose to suppress competitor by un
derselling him at price so unprofta
blp &C to drive him ont of business on