The Yale expositor. (Yale, St. Clair County, Mich.) 1894-current, 1911-12-07


cree these defendants will hold amounts
or stock In the various distributee COM
panles ranging from Al per cent. as a
maximum to 2SA per cent. as a minimum,
except In the case of one small company,
the Porto Rican Tobacco company, in
which they will hold 40 per cent. The
twenty-nine Individual defendants are en-
joined for three years from buying any
stock except from each other, and the
group is thus prevented from extending
It's control during that period. All parties
10 the suit, and the new companies who
are made parties, are enjoned perpetual
~ from in any way effecting any COM
bination between any of the companies
in violation OF the statute by
way OF resumption OF the old trust. Each
of the fourteen companies is enjoincd
from acquiring stock in any OF the others
All these companies are enJoned from
having common directors or officers, or
common buying or selling agents, or COM
mon Offices, or lending money to each
other.
Size of New Companies.
Objection was made by certain indie
pendent tobacco companies that this set
Element was unjust because II left COM
panies with very large capital in active
business, and that the settlement that
would be effective to put all on an equal
ny NOuiu NC a. dlbiSlOll VI Nllc CdplNdl NilO
plant of the trust into small fractions in
amount more nearly equal to that of each
of the independent companies. This con-
tention results from misunderstanding
of the antitrust law and its purpose.
1t is not intended thereby to prevent the
accumulation of large capital In business
enterprises in which such combination
can secure reduced cost OF production.
sale and distribution. 1t is directly
against SlRh nUVrpVuiinn of Cnnita1
only when its purpose Is that of sitting
competition, enhancing or controlling
prices and establishing monopoly. II
we shall have by the decree defeated these
purposes and restored competition be-
tween the large units into which the cap
ital and plant have been divided. we
shall have accomplished the useful pur
pose of the. statute.
Confscatlon Not the Purpose Of the
Statute.
1t is not the purpose OF the statute to
confiscate the property and capital of the
offending trusts. Methods OF punishment
by fine or Imprisonment of the individual
offenders, by fine OF the corporation, or
by forfeiture of its goods in transporta-
ton. are provided, but the proceeding In
equity is a specific remedy TO stop the
operation of the trust by injunction and
prevent the future use Of the plant and
capital in violation of the statute.
I venture to say that not In the history
of American law has a decree more ef-
fective for such a purpose been entered
by court than that against the Tobacco
trust.
Commensurate Ownership.
1t has been assumed that the present
pro-rata and common ownership In all
these companies by former stockholders
Of ha
of the same old single control of all the
companies into which the trust has by
decree been dislntegrated. This is err
roneous and is based upon the assumed In
efficacy and innocuousness OF judicial In
functions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination; they
have different managers. directors, pur-
chasing and sales agents. If all or any
of the numerous stockholders, reaching
into the thousands, attempt to secure
action of the companies with a
view to the control of the market. their
number Is so large that such an attempt
could not well be concealed and Its prime
movers and all Its participants would be
at once subject to contempt proceedings
and imprisonment of summary charac-
ter The immediate result of the present
situation will necessarily be activity by
all the companies under different man
ayers and then competition must follow.
or there will be activity by one company
and stagnation by another. Only short
time will inevitably lead to a change in
ownership of the stock, as all oppor-
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear.
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
Law.
But now that the antitrust act is seen
to be effective for the accomplishment OF
the purpose OF its enactment. we are met
by cry from many different quarters
for It's repeal 1t Is said to be obstructive
of business progress. to be an attempt to
restore fashioned methods of de-
structive competition between small units
and to make impossible those useful COM
binations 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
I'm the statute which condemns combina-
lions of capital or mere bigness Of plant
organized to secure economy in produce
ton and a reduction OF its cost. 1t is only
when the purpose or necessary effect OF
the organization and maintenance of the
or the aggregation OF i'm
mense size are the sitting of competition.
actual and potential. and the enhancing
that the statute Is violated. Mere size
is no sin against the law. The merging
Of two or more busines plants necessarily
eliminates competition between the units
thus combined, but this elimination is in
OF the statute only when
the combination is made for purpose OF
ending this particular competition in or
der to secure control OF, and enhance.
prices and create n monopoly.
Lack Of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
that Il is not sufficiently definite in its
OF that which is forbidden. to
enable business men to avoid its viola
ton. The suggestion is, that we may
have n combination OF two corporations
which may run on for years. and that
the attorney general may
that II was a violation of the
statute, and that which was supposed by
the combiners to DO inocent then turns
out to be n combination in violation OF
the statute The answer to this hypo-
thetical case is that when men attempt
10 amass stupendous capital as will enable
them to suppress competition. control
prices and establish n monopoly they
know the purpose OF their acts. Men do
not do such thing without having II
clearly in mind.
New Remedies Suggested.
10 oolI a.