The citizen., 1911-12-08
among the people Of the United
States"
common-stoek 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 e erroneous and
is based upon the assumed inefficacy
and innocuousness of judicial iniunc-
tions. The companies are enioined
| from cooperation or combination;
/ they have different managers. direc-
/ tors, purchasing and sales agents. IL
all or any of the numerous stockhold-
ers. reaching into the thousands, at
( tempt to secure concerted action oil
/ the companies with a view TO the con-
4 troll OF the market, their number is so
7 large that such an attempt could not
well be concealed and its prime NOV
I ers and all its participants would be
/ at once subject TO contempt proceed
/ ings and Imprisonment Of summary
/ character The immediate result OF
/ the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies un-
der different managers. and then COM
petition must follow. or there viii
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another Only short time
will inevitably lead to change IN
ownership Of the stock. as all oppor-
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear Those critics who speak
of this disintegration in the trust as
a mere change of garments have not
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 a court whose OBJ
ject is made plain by the decree and
whose inhibitions are set forth with
detail and comprehensiveness unex-
ampled 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.
a southern wholesale grocers' associa-
tion, an interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions by
f
ton. and other combinations of sim
liar history are now negotiating with
the department of justice looking to
disintegration by decree and .reorgan-
ization in accordance with law. 1t
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
eut quarters for its repeal. 1t is said
7 to be obstructive of business progress,
/ ioned methods of destructive competi.
/ ton between small units. and to make
I 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 CT plant organized TO secure
economy IN production and reduc-
/ tion 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 competi-
4 ton. actual and potential, and the en-
4 hancing of prices and establishing a
/ monopoly. that the statute is violated
/ The merging of two or more business
/ plants necessarily eliminates competi
/ ton between the units thus combined,
| but this elimination is in contrayention
/ of the statute only when the combina-
tion is made for purpose Of ending this
particular competition in order to Sc
cure control of. and enhance. prices
and create monopoly.
Lack of Defniteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
| that it Is not sufficiently definite in
| its description of that which is forbid,
| den, to enable business men to avoid
its violation. The suggestion is. that
we may have a combination of two
corporations. which may run on for
years. and that subsequently the attor.
ney general may conclude that it was
violation of the statute, and that
which was supposed by the combiners
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 OF suppressing
competition by use of the bigness oi
the plant they are creating. then they
cannot be convicted at the time the
union is made, nor can they be con
victed later, unless 1t happen that later
on they conclude to suppress competi
ton and take the usual methods fol
doing so. and thus establish for them
selves a monopoly. They can, in such
case, hardly complain If the motive
which subsequently is disclosed Is at
tributed by the court to the origina
combination.