Forest City press. (Forest City, Potter County, D.T. [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1911-12-14

to re-create IN accordance with the con.
dttiops which the congress has declared
h exist among h people OF the United
States"
Common Stock Ownership.
It has been assumed that the present
pro rata and common ownership in al
these companies by former stockholders
of the trust would insure a continuance
OF the same old single control of all the
companie into which the trust has by
decree been distntegrated. This, Is enron
eous and Is based upon the assumed in
efncacy and i-nnocuousness of judicial in.
functions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination; they
nave different managers. directors, pur-
chasing and sales agents. If all or many
OF the numerous stockholders, reaching
into the thousands, attempt to secure con-
certed action OF the companies with a
view to the control Of the market, their
number Is 80 large that such an attempt
could not we'll be concealed. and its prime
movers and all Its participants would be
at once subjected to contempt proceedings
ana Imprisonment OF q summary charac-
ter. The immediate result of the present
situation will necessarily be activity by
HI the under different man
gers. and then competition must follow. or
there VIII be activity by one company
VIII inevitably lead to a change in owner
snip. OF the stock, as all opportunity for
continued cooperation must disappear.
Inose critics who speak of his disin-
OF garments h We not given consideration
to tho inevitable working Of the decree
and understand little the personal danger
OF attempting to evade or set at naught
the solemn Injunction of a court who's
OBJECT is made plain by the decree and
whose inhibttions are set forth with a de-
TAI comprehensiveness ~unexanlpled
ii tie history OF equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Organizations.
Tho effect of these two decisions has led
manufacturers of electric lamps, a SOUTH
ern wholesale grocers' association, an In
ter.ocutory decree against the powder
compelling dissolution, and other combi-
nations of a similar history are now nego-
tlatins with the department. of justice
,oonans TO a d~isintegration by decree and
reo~rSalzatfon In accordance with law. 1t
seems possible to bring about these reor-
gini2ations without general business dis
t~urbance.
The Cry for Repeal.
But now thai the antitrust act is seen
TO be effective for the accomplishment of
the purpose of it's enactment, we are met
by a cry from many different quarters for
its repeal. 1t is said to be obstructive OF
restore old fashioned methods of destruct-
I've competition between small, units, and
to make impossible those usful combina-
IONS OF capital and the reduction of the
cost OF production that are essential to
continued prosperity and normal growth.
IN the recent decisions the supreme
court makes clear that there is nothing
M the statute which condemns combina-
tlons or capital or mere bigness of plant
organized to secure economy in produce
tlon and a reduction of it's cost. 1t is only
when the purpose or necessary effect of
the organization and maintenance of the
combination or the aggregation of inn
mense size are the sitting of competition.
~ III and tn,t -~I H.
or prices and establishing a monopoly,
that the statute is violated. Mere size is
no sin against, the law. The merging of
eliminates competition between the units
thus combined. but this elimination is in
of the statute only when
ending this particular competition in Or
der to secure control of, and a
prices and create a monopoly.
Lack Of Definiteness
The complaint is made of the statute
that it is not sufficiently definite in it's
enaoIe business men to avoid it's viola
tlon. The suggestion is. that we may
nave a combination Of two corporations,
subsequently the attorney general may
conclude that it was a violation of the
statute. ana that which was supposed by
Out to be a combination in violation of
the statute. The answer to this hypo-
thetlcai case is that when men attempt to
amass such stupendous capital as will
enable them to suppress competition. con-
troll prices and establish a monopoly, they
know. the purpose of their acts. Men do
not do such q thing without having il
clearly IN mind. II what they do is mere
ly for the purpose OF reducing the cost of
reduction, Without the thought of SUP
OF the " they are creating, then they
cannot be convicted at the time the
union is made, nor can they be convicted
later. unless it happen that later on they
conciude to suppress competition and
thus establish for themselves q monopoly.
They can, in such a case, hardly complain
II the motive which subsequently, is dis
closed Is attributed by the court to the
original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much Is said of the repeal of tllist stat
ute and of constructive legislation in
tended to accomplish the purpose and
and business men to follow. 1t may be
that such Q plan will be evolved. but l
submit that the discussions which have
Deen brought out In recent days by the
rear of the continued execution Of the
law ave produced nothing but
line of distinction or rule of action as def
mite and as clear as that which the SUI
preme court itself lays down in enforcing
the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed.
l see no o~bjection-and indeed | can see
decided advantages-in the enactment of
a law which shall describe and denounce
rnethods OF competition which are unfair
ana are badges of the unlawful purpose
~nounc In the antitrust law. The at
tempt and purpose to suppress a connect.
ttor by underselling him at q price so