El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-09-18

business honesty or morality, and urge
the establishment Of some legal line of
separation by which criminal trusts
Of this kind can be punished, and they,
on the other hand, be permitted under
the law to carry on their business NOW
the public, and especially the business
public, ought to rid themselves OF the
Idea that such a distinction is prac-
ticable or can be introduced into the
statute. Certainly under the present
antitrust law no such distinction eZ-
that the word reasonable should be
made a part of the statute, and then
that it should be left to the court to say
what Is reasonable restraint OF trade,
what is a reasonable suppression Of
competition, what is a reasonable mo-
nOpOly. venture TO think that this is
to put into the hands Of the court a
power. impossible TO exercise on any
consistent principle which viii insure
the uniformity Of decision essential TO
just judgment. It is 10 thrust upon the
courts burden that they have no pre-
cedents to enable them to carry, and
to give them power approaching the
arbitrary, the abuse of which might
involve our whole judicial system in
disaster
This paragraph has been quoted and
spread on the records Of the senate on
the motion Of a senator who consider
ed this TO be at variance with the de-
cisiOn Of the supreme court. Instead of
being at variance, il is in exact accord
ance with those decisions.
Again from those who have given
up free competition as an economic
force that ought to be encouraged or
enforced and who are utterly opposed
70 the spirit Of the antitrust law, We
nave frequently heard the question
well suppose you convict those large
combinations under the statute, what
are you going to do about it2 You can,
perhaps, send some men to the peni-
NV fl ina
tons which have cheapened the cost Of
production and given you most Of your
foreign trade and much Of your pros
perity, but what are you going to do
with the capital invested, the plant and
the organizations You can cOnfiSCate
II and ruin your county by a panic. but
you can't divide such combinations into
Lnelr component parts, Tor the line Of
division has disappeared into a com
mission ownership
Court Has Met Issue.
The court has met the issue and the
queries presented by the dOubters and
scOffers. 1t has vindlcated the majestv
Of the Law, has illustrated the wonder
Tul elasticity and adaptabillty of rem
edy by Injunction in equity and has at
the same time manifested a due regard
for the welfare of the innocent bust
ness men and the community at large,
who in a cataclysm caused by the con-
Is involved IN these combinations and
suspension Of the Legitimate part OF
their business would be buried with
them in a common ruin.
The court has exhibited a courage in
facing the necessary results in enfOrc-
ing the statute that instead Of prompt
ing an attack on it. ought to make ev-
cry american proud that we have such
a tribunal. 1t is now enforcing its de-
cree against the Standard Oil company
and against the tobacco company, and
1t is making those great combinations
divide thmselVes into component parts
Ia a ri
that an Injunction shall be constantly
operative to prevent Dy contempt prO-
eeedings any assumption Of the old re-
4auOnS OF monopoly. This was an
easier matter in reference to the Stand
ard Oil company, because Il was eagv
TO divide up the various companies that
were united by the ownership Of stock
OF all the companies in a single hold
ing company. In the tobacco company
the decree could not be worked out so
easily, and 1t viii be necessary to sep
companies and to distribute these
plants into different snd differing own
erships in order to create competition
between them and maintain that COM
petition by the power Of a continuing
injunction against any future union or
agreement to avoid competition. It
needed these two great decisions to
teach the business public that at least
not in the supreme tribunal Of this
country would the calm be listened to-
that in this day and generation we
have passed beyond the possibility OF
rree competition as CONSTANT with
proper business growth or that wa
have reached a time when only regu-
lated monopoly and the fixing of prices
by governmental authority are consist
ent with future progress.
Monopoly NOt Necessary.
I'VE did get along without monopoly.
we can get along without it: and the
business men Of this country must
square themselves to that necessifv
Either that. or we must Drocea6 f. a
state Of socialism and vest the govern
ment with power to run every business
The decision of the supreme court IS IN
the highest interest of the public and
[ am glad to think that business men
who have been violating the trust law
are now being made to see the neceq-
slty for putting their houses in order.
changing their original OrganfZatf ons
giving NJ the idea that It is necessarv
TO control markets in order TO make
profits. and reverting to the old DrfDcF-
pie Of free competition, In which all
limit upon it to prevent its being ey-
cessiVe must be self imposed nv the
good sense Of each competitor and NOT
by any arrangement or contract be-
tween competitors or secret stipulation
or wink or nod.
The decision of the supreme court
as it grows to be understood i'm the
near future viii be a signal for the
Voluntary breaking M Of all cOmbina-
tons in restraint in trade within the
inhibition of the statute and will. 7
hope, lead to complete reVuIsfOn OF
feeling on the part Of the business men
Of this country and 90 clear under
by them Of the limitations
that must be imposed by them uDon
any business combinations made bv
them in the future The operation OF Z
the statute has Illustrated the slow
ness of judicial preceding. and Of this
] have often made complaints. but in
the settlement OF issues Of this i'm
portance two decades are no great