The Fulton County news. [volume] (McConnellsburg, Pa.) 1899-current, 1911-12-07
among the people OF the United
States"
Common-Stock Ownership.

Comnon-StOCk OWncTsH'p'
II has been assumed that the pres
ent prorata and common ownership
in all these companies by former
stockholders Of the trust would Insure
continuance OF the same old single
control OF all the companies Into
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This is erroneous and
Is based upon the assumed lnefiicacy
and lnnocuousness OF judicial inJunc'
tions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combinatlon' )
they have different managers, direc'
tors, purchasing and sales agents II
all or any of the numerous stockhold'
ers, reaching into the thousands, at
tempt to secure concerted action Of
the companies with view to the con-
troll of the market, their number Is so
large that such an attempt could not
well be concealed and It's prime NOV
ers and all its participants would be
at once subject to contempt proceed
ings and Imprisonment OF a summary
character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies uh'
der different managers. and then com
petition must follow. or there VIII
be activity by one company ana stag
nation by another Only a short time
will inevitably lead to a change III
ownership of the stock. as all oppor'
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear. Those critics who speak
of this disintegration in the trust as
mere change Of garments have not
given consideration to the ineVitaple
working Of the decree and understand
little the personal danger OF attempt
ing TO evade or set at naught the sol
emn Injunction of court whose op
iect Is made plain by the decree ana
whose inhibitions are set forth with
detail and comprehensiveness uneN'
amped in the history of equity ]uris'
prudence.
The effect OF these two decisions has
led TO DEGREES dssolving the combina'
don Of manufacturers of electric lamps
southern wholesale grocers' associa
ton. an interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions by
the circuit court compelling dissolu
ton. and other combinations OF a sim
liar history are now negotiating with
The department OF justice looking to a
dislntegration by decree and reorgan
ization I'm accordance with law. IL
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 difer'
ent quarters for its repeal II Is said
to be obstructive of business progress.
to be an attempt to restore old-fash'
ioned methods OF destructive competi
tion between small units. and to make
impossible those useful combinations
of capital and the reduction of the cost
of production that are essential to con
tlnued 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
nF
economy IN production and a reduc
tlon of It's 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
ton, actual and potential, and the en-
hancing of prices and establishing a
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
ton between the units thus combined,
but this elimination is in contravention
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 a monopoly.
Lack OF Deflniteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
that II is not sufficiently definite In
its description of shat 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 1t 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
| NlluOut HdNlHS IL NiSthl ~ III hiihu' IL
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 OF
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
tion and take the usual methods for
doing so, and thus establish for them
selves a monopoly They can, in such
a case, hardly complain II the motive
which subsequently is disclosed is at
trlbuted by the court to the original
combination.
New Remedies Suggested.