Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-12-06


speak OF this dlsintegration in the trust
as 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
tnhlbitions are set forth with a detail
and comprehensiyeness unexampled In
the history Of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Rsorga ganizations Of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combina-
tiOn Of manufacturers of electric
lamps, southern wholesale grocers'
association, an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust, with direc.
tlons by the circuit court compelling
dissolution, and other combinations Of
a similar history are now negotiating
with the department Of Justice looking
to dlsintegration 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 tho Anti
trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act is
seen to be effective for the accomplish
ment Of the purpose Of its 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
ioned methods Of destructive cOmpetl
ton between small units and to make
impossible those useful combinations
of capital and the reduction OF the cost
of production that ure 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 of
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 sitting 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 of
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 its description of that which is for
hidden to enable business men to avoid
its violation. The suggestion is that
we may have combination Of two
corporations which may run on for
years and that subsequently the at
torney general may conclude that it
was violation of the statute and that
which was supposed by the combiners
to be innocent then turns out to be
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 dc, such a 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-
lish for themselves monopoly. They
can in such case hardly complain If
the motive which subsequently is dis
closed is attributed by the court to the
original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said of the repeal of this
statute and of constructive legislation
intended to accomplish the purpose |
and blaze "A clear path for honest mer-
chants and business men to follow. 1t |
may be that such a plan will be |
evolved, but submit that the discus
sions which have been brought out in
recent days by the fear of the con-
tinued execution of the antitrust law
have produced nothing but glittering
generalities and have offered no line
OF distinction or rule of action as def.
mite and as clear as that which the SUI
preme court itself lays down in en-
forcing the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed, Not
Repeal or Amendment.
see no objection, and indeed can
see decided advantages, in the enact
ment Of a law which shall describe
and denounce methods of competition
which are unfair and are badges of the
unlawful purpose denounced in the
antitrust law The attempt and pur-
bose to suppress a competitor by un-
lerSelling him at a price SO unprofta-
ole as to drive him out Of business or
he making of exclusive contracts with
customers unlnr which tbav ora 20