The Tupelo journal., 1911-12-08
among the people q the unitsa

6t4JeB.
common-stock Ownership.
II has been assumed that the pres
emit pro-rata and common ownership
In all these companies by former
stockholders Of the trust would insure
q continuance Of the same old single
control Of all the companies Tito
which the trust has by decree been
disintegrated. This is erroneous and
Is based upon the assumed ~ineflcacy
and innocuousness of judicial injunc-
lions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation or combination;
they have different managers. direc-
tors. purchasing and sales agents. If
all or any of the numerou stockhold-
ers, reaching into the thousands, at
tempt to secure concerted action OF
the companies with a view to the con-
troll OF the market. their number Is so
large that such an attempt could not
well be concealed and its prime NOV
ers and all its participants would be
at once subject to contempt proceed
lngs and Imprisonment Of a summary
character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies un-
der different managers. and then CON-
petition must follow. Or there Will
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another. Only a short time
will inevitably lead to a change !
auunArchfn - tkn o&00H &C oil nnnOP.
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear. Those critics who speak
Of this disintegration In the trust as
a mere change Of garments hav not
given consideration to the inevitable
working Of the decree and understand
litOe the personal danger OF attempt
ing to evade or set at naught b sol
emn injunction of q court whose oo-
ject is made plain by the decree ana
whose inhibitions are set forth with 9
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.
a southern wholesale grocers' associa'
ton. an introductory 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 q
disintegration by decree and reorgan-
in accordance with law. 1t
possible to bring about these re-
organizations without general business
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
Law.
But now that the antitrust act Is
seen to be effective for the accomplish
of the purpose Of its enactment.
we are met by a cry from many differ
ent quarters for its repeal. 1t 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
those useful combinations
of capital and the reduction of the cost
Of production that are essential to con-
prosperity and normal growthi.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
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 a reduc-
ton of Its cost 1t Is only when the
purpose or necessary effect of the or
and maintenance Of the
or the aggregation Of i'm
nense size are the sitting of competi-
lion, actual and potential. and the en-
of prices and establishing q
that the statute is violated.
size Is no sin against the law.
The merging of two or more business
necessarily eliminates competi-
ion between the units thus combined.
nut this elimination Is in CONFIRMATION
If the statute only when the combina-
ion is made for purpose OF ending this
particular competition in order to Sc
cure control of. and enhance. prices
md create a monopoly.
Lack Of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint Is made of the statute
hat It is not sufficiently definite in
Is description of that which Is forbid
len. to enable business men to avoid
is violation. The suggestion Is. that
may have a combination of two
corporations. which may run on for
ears. and that subsequently the attor-
ley general may conclude that it was
/ violation of the statute. and that
which was supposed by the combiners
o be innocent then turns out to be a
in violation of the stat
tie. The answer to this hypothetical
is that when men attempt to
tmass ~stupendous capital as will n
.ble them to suppress competition.
prices and establish a monop-
lily they know the purpose Of their
.cts. Men do not do such a thing
having it clearly in mind. II
What they do is merely for the purpose
If reducing the cost of production.
the thought of suppressing
competition by use OF the bigness of
he plant they are creating. then they
be convicted at the time the
,ntOu IN made nor can thew ho nom