The Durham recorder. [volume] (Durham, N.C.) 1879-19??, 1911-12-08

injunction and prevent the future
use OF the plant and capital In viola
tion OF the statute.
Common Stock Ownerihip.
| II has been assumed that the pres
ent pro rata and common ownershiT
In an these companies By former
stockholders OF the trust would In
sure : continuance Of the same old
single control OF all the companies
into which the trust has by decree
been disintegrated. This Is err
roneous and 10 based upon the ~
sumed inefficacy and innocuousness
lof judicial injunctions- The COM
panies are enjoined from coopera
ttcn or combination: they have DIFF
ferent managers. directors. purchas
Ing and sales agents. II all or many
OF the numerous stockholders, reach.
Ing nto the thousands. attempt to
secure concerted action OF the com.
panies with q view to the control Of
the market, their number is 80 largs
that such an attempt could not WEI
be concealed, and its prime movers
and all Its participants would be Il
once subject to contempt proceed.
ings and imprisonment OF q sum
mary character. The immediate re
suit or the present situation viii.
necessarily BE- activity BY all the
companies under different managers
and then competition must follow.
Tor there will be activity by one com
Ipany and stagnatior by another
tOnly Z short time win inevitably
Lead TO change In ownership OF the
stock. as all opportunity for con-
tinued cooperation must disappear.
Those critics who speak OF this dis
lntegration In the trust as Z mere
>hange OF garments have not given
consideration TO the inevitable work
ing OF the decree and understand
little the personal danger OF attempt
ng TO evade or set At naught the
solemn injunction OF court whose
object 10 made plain by the decree
md whose inhibitions are set forth
With a detail and comprehensiveness
rnexampled In the history OF equity
Jurisprudence.
Mosesncnt for Repeal Of the Anti.
Trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act
seen to be effective for the &C.
omplishment OF the purpose Of liz
'nactment. we are met by = cry from
many different quarters for its re.
,eaA II il said 20 be obstructive
VI business progress, TO be an at
empt to restore old-faxhioned
Methods OF destructive competition
between small units. and TO make
impossible those useful combine.
tons OF capital and the reduction OF
the cost Of production that are es.
,enfial 10 continued prosperity and
normal growth.
| In the recent decisions the su.
preme court makes clear that there
8 nothing In the statute which con
dennis combinations OF capital OF
mere biEness Of plant organized "a
secure economy in production and Z
eduction OF Its cost. II Is only when
he purpose or necessary effect OF
The organization and maintenance OF
he combination or the aggregation
Iof immense sire are the xtifing cI
ompcfition. actual and potential,
and the enhancing OF prices and
establishing monopoly. that the
statute Ia violated. Mere sire il nc
sin against the Law. The merging
of two or more business plants
necessarily eliminates competition
between the units thus combined
but this elimination Ia in contrayen.
ton of the statute only when the
comb'nation Ia made for purpose OF
lending this particular competition IN
order 10 secure control OF. and en-.
hance. prices and create monopoly.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much Is s~id Of the repeal OF this
statute and Of constructive Legislation
Intended TO accomplish the purpose
and blaze clear path for honest
n.erthanfs and bnsiness men TO fol-
low. y may be that plan will b.
eyoiyed. bur submit that the discus.
sions which have been brought out IN
recent days by the Fear Of she con-
tInued execution % the anti-truss law
have produced nothing but eli,fering
IgeneralIficS and have offered no line
s distinction or rule o. action as def
mite and M clear as that which the
supreme court i:self lays down In en-
forcing fhe statste.
Supplemental IegIslstIea Needed.
| Net Repeal or Amendment. Z.
| sce no Objection and indeed can
sse decided advanssxrs-in che en-
scimens Of Law wAlcs, shall describe
and denounce methods of composition
which are unfair and are badges OF
the upls wful purpose denounced IN the
s1fi-trus, Law. The attempt and pur-
pose % suppress competitor by un-
dcrscllinx him at price 20 unproftta-
b. a. 70 drive him out Of business.
Tor he making Of exclusive contracts
with customers under which they are
required TO give up association with
other manufacturers. and numerous
kindred me<hods for stifring compel.
ton Aud eIfccting monopoly. should be
DESERVED win zafliciens accuracy IN
la criminal statute on the one hand TO
enable che government 60 shorten its
task by prosecuting single mtsdcsncslI.
ofz instead Of an entire conspiracy,
and. on che other hand. 70 serve the