Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1911-12-06
people Of the United States"
Common Stock Ownership.

Common Stock Ownership.
1T has been assumed that the pres
ent pro rata and common ownership in
all these companies by former stock
holders of the trust would insure a
continuance of the same old single con-
troll of all the companies into which
the trust has by decree been disinte-
grated This is erroneous and is based
upon the assumed inefficacy and innoc-
uousness of judicial injunctions. The
companies are enjoined from co-opera-
ton or combination; they have differ
ent managers. directors. purchasing
and sales agents. If all or many Of
the numerous stockholders. reaching
into the thousands, attempt to secure
concerted action of the companies with
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 it's partic-
ipants would be at once subject to con-
tempt proceedings and Imprisonment
OF summary character. The immedi-
ate result of the present situation will
panies under different managers. and
then competition must follow or there
will be activity by one company and
stagnation by another. Only Il short
time will inevitably lead to IL change
In ownership OF the stock. az MI or
portunity for continued cooperation
must disappear. Those critics who
speak of this disintegration In the trust
rs - mere change of garments have not
given consideration TO the inevitable
working of the decree and understand
little the personal danger of attempt
ing to evade or set at naught the sol
emn injunction of court whose object
is made plain by the decree and whose
inhibitions are set forth with a detail
and comprehensiveneSS uneXampled in
the history of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Reorganizations of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
ton of manufacturers of electric
lamps, southern wholesale grocers'
association, an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust, with direc-
lions by the circuit court compelling
dissolution, and other combinations of
similar history are now negotiating
with the department of justice looking
to disintegration by decree and re-
organization in accordance with law
1t seems possible to bring about these
reorganizations without general bust
ness disturbance.
Movement For Repeal of the Anti
trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act il
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 it's 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 econ
omy in production and reduction or
its cost. 1t is only when the purpose
or necessary effect of the organization
and maintenance of the combination
or the aggregation of immense size are
the stifling of competition. actual and
potential, and the enhancing of prices
and establishing a monopoly that the
statute is violated Mere size Is no
sin against the law. The merging OF
two or more business plants necessari-
ly eliminates competition between the
units thus combined, but this elimina-
ton is in contravention Of the statute
only when the combination Is made for
purpose of ending this particular COM
petition in order to secure control or
and enhance prices and create a mo-
nopoly.
Lack of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the stat
ute that it Is not sufficiently definite
in it's description Of that which Is Tor
hidden to enable business men to avoid
it's violation. The suggestion Is that
we may have a combination of two
corporations which may run on for
years and that subsequently the at
torney general may conclude that II
was a violation of the statute and that
which was supposed by the combiners
to be innocent then turns out to be a
combination in violation of the statute.
The answer to this hypothetical case
is that when men attempt to amass
such stupendous capital as will enable
them to suppress competition, control
prices and establish monopoly they
know the purpose of their acts. Men
do not do such thing without having
1t clearly in mind. If what they do Is
merely for the purpose of reducing the
cost OF production. without the thought
of suppressing competition by use OF the
bigness of the plant 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 conclude to sup
press competition and take the usual
methods for doing so and thus estab-
Iish for themselves monopoly. They
can in such a case hardly complain II
the motive which subsequently Is dis
closed is attributed by the court to the