The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-12-05
THE FARMER: DECEMBER ,. 1911

Tn the recent decisions the supreme court makes clear that there is noth- ing in the statute which condemns combinations of capital or mere big ness of plant organized to secure econ omy in production and q reduction Of its cost. It 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 monopoly that the statute is violated. Mere size Is no sin against the law. The merging Of two or more business plants necessarl- ly eliminates competition between the units thus combined, but this elimina- tion is in contravention of the statute only when the combination is made for purpose of ending this particular con- petition in order to secure control of and enhance prices and create mo- nopoly.
 Lack of Definteness 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 for bidden to enable business men to avoid its 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 it was violation of the statute and that which was supposed by the containers 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 a monopoly they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such thing without having it 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 SUD- press competition and take the usual methods for doing so and thus estab- fish for themselves a monopoly. They can in such a 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 clear path for honest mer- chants and business men to follow. It 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 defi- nite and as clear as that which the su- preme court itself lays down in en- forcing the statute.
 Supplemental Legislation Needed, Not
 Repeal or Amendment.
 I see no objection. and indeed I can see decided advantages, in the enact ment of 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- pose to suppress competitor by un- dersellin" him at price so unprofita- ble as t drive him out of business or the making of exclusive contracts with customers under which they are re quired to give up association with oth- CT manufacturers and numerous kin dred methods for stif1ing competition and effecting monopoly should be de- scribed with sufficient accuracy in a criminal statute on the one hand to enable the government to shorten its task by prosecuting single misdemean- OTIS instead of an entire conspiracy and m the other hand to serve the purpose of pointing out more in detail to the business community what must be avoided.
 Federal Incorporation Recommended.
 Tn a special message to congress on Jan. ', 1910, l ventured to point out the disturbance to business that would probably attend the dissolution of these offending trusts. I said:
 "But such an investigation and pos sible prosecution of corporations whose prosperity or destruction affects the comfort not only of stockholders, but of millions of wage earners, employees and associated tradesmen, must neces- sarily tend to disturb the confidence of the business community, to dry up the now flowing sources of capital from it's places of hoarding and pro- duce halt in our present prosperity that will cause suffering and strained circumstances among the innocent many for the faults of the guilty few. The question which I wish in this message to bring clearly to the con- sideration and discussion of congress is whether, in order to avoid such a possible business danger. something cannot be done by which these busi- ness combinations may be offered a means, without great financial dis turbance, of changing the character, organization and extent of their busi- ness into one within the lines of the law under federal control and super vision, securing compliance with the