The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-12-07
among the peopI. of the tinted
common.stoes Ownership.

f'@+
Il pro-rata and common ownership
In all these companies by former
stockholders OF the trust would insure
n continuance Of the same old single
control of all the companies into
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This is = and
is based upon the assumed inenicacy
and innocuousness of judicial iniunc-
lions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or continuation:
they have different managers, direc-
tors, purchasing and sales agents. II
all or any of the numerous stockhold-
ers. reaching into the thousands, al
tempt to 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 he concealed and its prime NOV
ers end all its participants would lie
at once subject 10 contempt proceed
ings and imprisonment of a summary
! character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies un-
der different managers. and then com
7 petition must follow. or there VIII
he activity by n company and stag
nation by another. Only a short time
will inevitably lead to a change In
ownership of the stock, as all oppor-
Itunity for continued cooperation must
disappear. Those critics who speak
Iof this d~isintegration in the trust rs
a mere change of garments have not
given consideration to the inevitable
VOL king of the decree and understand
little the personal danger Of attempt
ing to eyade or set at naught the sol
emn injunction Of a court whose OBJ
iicct is made plain by the decree and
whose inhibitions are set forth with a
detail and compreheusiveness uneS-
amplea in the history of equity juris-
prudence.
The effect OF these two decisions has
led TO DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton CT manufacturers Of electric lamps.
n southern wholesale groccrs' associa'
tion. an i~nterlocutory decree against
the powder trus, with directions by
lhc circuit court compelling disso.u
ton, and other combinations of a sim
liar history are now negotiating with
the department of justice looking to a
disintegration by decree and reorgan-
ization in accordance with law. l:
seems possible to bring about these re
Organizations without general business
disturbance.
Movement fer Fcpea! CT the An:i-Trus,
Law.
..But now that the antitrust act is
seen TO be effective for the accomplish
inent Of the purpose OF its enactment
we ere met by d cry from many differ
cnt quarters fer its "epsal. Ii is sale
10 be obstructive CT business progress
10 be an attempt to restore oid-fash
ioucG methods OF destructive colnpeti
ticn between small units, and to make
impossible those useful combinations
of capital and the reduction Of the cos
OF production chat are essential to con
linued prosperity and normal growth.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
court makes clear thai there is moth
ing in the statute which condemn!
combinations of capital or mere big
moss Of plant organized to secure
economy in production and a reduc
ton OF its cost. 1t is only when Tho
purpose on necessary effect OF the or
ganization aud maintenance OF th,
combination on the aggregation OF i'm
sncGse size ere the sitting of conpeti
ton, actual and potential. and the en-
aancing 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 necessarily eliminates competi
lion between the units thus combined
but this elimination is in c~ontraventiCr
of the statute only when the combina
ton is made for purpose of ending this
particular competition in order to Sc
cure control of. and enhance. price!
and create a monopoly.
lack of Definiteness in the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
ttat it is not sufficiently definite il
its description of that which is forbid
den, 10 enable business men to ayoit
its violation. The suggestion is. tina
VIC may haze Il combination of two
corporations. which may run on fol
Years, and that subsequently the attor
neN general may conclude that it was
a violation of the statute. and tina
which was supposed by The comDiners
to be innocent then turns out to be F:
combination in violation of the stat
ute, The nsMer TO this Hypothetical
case is that when men attempt tt
alnass stupendous capital as will Ell
able ihcm to suppress competition
control prices ard establish a monop
oily they know The purpose OF theil
acts. Men do not do such a thing
without having it clearly in mind. i
What they do is merely for the purpos
of reducing the cost Of production
without the thought of suppressinl
competition by use Of the bigness o
the plant they are creating. then the,
caunot be convicted at the time Tho
union is made, o can they be con
yicted later. unless it happen that late
Oh they conclude to suppress competi
ton and take the usual methods fol
doing so, and thus establish for them
II N.---