Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1911-12-06
among the people Of the United
common.s.ock ownsr.hlp.

States" /, 4
IS common.stock ownsrshlp.
& It has been assumed that the pres
ent pro-rata and common 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 is erroneous and
Ia based upon the Assumed inefncacy
and innocuousness Of Judicial injunc.
lions. The companies are entoined
from cooperation Il or combination;
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 80
large that such an attempt could not
we'll be concealed and It's prime NOV.
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 I'M
der different managers. and then COM
petition must follow, or there will
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 court whose OBJ
ject is made plain by the decree and
whose inhibitions are set forth with a
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 Of manufacturers of electric lamps,
q southern Wholesale grocers' assocta-
ton, an interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions by
the circuit court compelling dissolu-
ton. and other combinations OF sim
liar history are now negotiating with
the department OF justice looking to q
disintegration by decree and reorgan.
ization in accordance with law. It
seems possible to bring about these re-
organizations without general business
disturbanc
Movement for Repeal Of tho 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
emit quarters for its repeal. It Is said
to be obstructive OF business progress.
to be an attempt to restore old-fash-
toned methods of destructive competi-
ton 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-
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 Of plant organized to secure
economy In production and reduc-
ton OF its cost. 1t 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-
HANGING 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 com bined.
but this elimination Is in contravention
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, prices
and create monopoly.
Lack Of DeHniteness In tho 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 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 monop-
oily they know the purpose Of their
acts. Men do not do such thing
without having it clearly in mind. If
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-
ton and take the usual methods for
doing SO, and thus establish for them
selves monopoly. They can, in such
a case, hardly complain II the motive
which subsequently Is disclosed Is at
tributed by the court to the original
combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said of the repeal Of this
statute and of constructive legislation
intended to accomplish the purpose
and blaze clear path for honest mer-
chants and business men to follow. 1t
may be that such a plan will be
evolved, but submit that the discus
sions which have been brought out in
recent days by the fear of the con-
tinued execution Of the antitrust law
have produced nothing but glittering
and have offered no line
Of distinction or rule OF action as