The Forrest City times., 1911-12-08
among cne people of the United


 stockholders -ct the trust would insure Q continuance of the same old single control Of all the companies into which the trust has by decree teen disirtegrated. This is erroneous and is based uron the assumed ineflcacy and innocuousress Of judicial inlunc- tions The companies are enioined from cooperation or combination; they have different managers. diree- tors, purchasing and sales agents all CT any of the numerous stockhoid- CTS. reaching into the thousands. at' tempt 10 secure concerted action of the companies with a view to the con trol of the market. their number Is so large that such an attempt could not well be concealed and it's prime nov CTS and all its participants would be at once subject 10 contempt proceed irgs and Imprisonment of summary character The immediate result of the present situation will necessarily he activity bF all the companies un- 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 10 Q change in ownership of the stock. as all oppor- unity for continued cooperation must disappear These critics who speak of this disinteEfati5n iH the trust as mere change of garments have not given consideration to the inevitable working c: tke decree and understand little the personal danger ot attempt ing to eeade CT set at naagat the sol emn injunction Of q court whose oo- iect is mace r,ain hE the decree and whose irtibitiz1s arc set forth with detail and comrrcheasiveness unex- ampled n the history Of equity Jurls- prudence
 Tie effect of these two decisions has led 70 deeTees dfssolving the com pima ten ef manufacturers Of electric lamps. q southern wholesale groeers' associa tion. an inter.eeutorF decree against the powder trust with directions by the circuit court compelling dissolu- tion. and other combinations of sim liar history are now negotiating with the department of justice looking to disintegraton by decree and reorgan- ization ia accordance with law. lt seems possible 10 bring about these re rgaEizatious without general business distur baHee.
 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 it's enactment. we are met by 8 cry from many differ ent quarters fer it's repeal It is said to be obstructive of business progress. 10 be an attempt to restore old-fash- toned methods of destructive competi ton between small units. and 10 make impossible those useful com binations of capital and the reduction of the cost of production that are essential to con. tinued prosperity and normal growth
 h the recent decisions the Supreme court makes clear that there is noth- ing h the statute which condemns combinations Of capital or mere big ness Of plant organized to secure ecGnany In production and reduc tiCn of it's cost. l. is only when the purpose or necessary effect of the or ganization and maintenance of the combination CT the segregation Of i'm n1ense size are tle sti4ug of competi- tion. actual and potential. and the en. hancing of prices and establishing monopoly that he 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 contrayention ot the statute only when the combina- tion is made for purpose Of e8ding this particular competition in order to SC cure control of and enhance. prices and create a monopoly
 Lack Of Oefniteness in the Statute.
 The complaint is made of the statute that i: is not sufficiently definite in its description of that which is forbid. den. to enable business men to avoid it's violation. The suggestion is. that We may have q combination of two corporations. which may run on for years and that subsequently, the attor- ney general nay conclude that it was a violation et the statute. and thai which was supposed by the combiners To be innocent then turns out to be combination in violation Of the stat. ute. The answer 10 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 monon. oly they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such thing without having 1t clearly in mind. If what they do is merely for the purpose of reducing the cost of production without the thought Of suppressino competition by Use Of the bigness of .he I.ant they are creating. then thev cannot he convicted at the time the union is made nor can they be con. yicted later unless it happen that later on they conclude 10 suppress connect ton and take the usual methods for doing SO. and thus establish for them.