The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1911-12-07
among tho people Of the United
States"

among tho people Of the United
States"
common.stock Ownership.
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
This is erroneous and
Is based upon the assumed ineMcacy
and innocuousness of judicial injunc-
lions. The companies are enjoined
from cooperation 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 so
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 a summary
character. The immediate result OF
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies un-
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 a 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
mere change of garments have not
given consideration to the lnev,taDle
working of the decree and understand
little the personal danger OF attempt
ing to evade or set at naught the. SOL
emn Injunction Of a court whose 90
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 1urls'
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 interlocutory decree against
the powder trust with directions by
the circuit court compelling dissolu
tion, and other combinations of sim
liar history are now negotiating with
the department of justice looking to a
disintegration by decree and reorgan'
fZation in accordance with law. 1t
seems possible to bring about these re-
organizations without general business
disturbance.
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
Law.
But now that the antitrust act is
seen to be effective for the accomplish.
ment of the purpose of it's enactment
we are met by 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
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 a reduc
ton of it's 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 {
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 combined
but this elimination is in contraventior
of the statute only when the combina
ton is made for purpose of ending thi:
particular competition in order to sc
cure CCuLiOl OIL, anu e1udllCe, prizes
and create monopoly.
Lack of Definiteness in the Statute.
The complaint is made of the statute
that it is not sufficiently definite il
it's description of that which is forbid
den, to enable business men to avoi(
it's violation. The suggestion is, tina
we may have a combination of tw,
corporations, which may run on TO
years. and that subsequently the attor
ney general may conclude that it wa
violation of the statute, and tina
which was supposed by the combiner
to be innocent then turns out to be
combination in violation Of the stat
ute. The answer to this Hypothetical
case is that when men attempt t
amass stupendous capital as will en-
able them to suppress competition
control prices and establish a monor
oily they know the purpose of thei
acts. Men do not do such a thinI
without having it clearly in mind.
what they do is merely for the purpos
of reducing the cost Of production