Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-12-06

little the personal danger of attempt
ing to evade or set at flaught the sol
emn injunction of q court whose object
is made plain by the decree and whose
inhibitions are set forth with detail
and comprehensiveness unexampled in
the history of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Reoreanizations of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect of these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissol7ing the combina
ton of manufacturers of electric
lamps, southern wholesale grocers'
association, an interlocutory decree
against the powder trust, with direc-
tions by the circuit court compelling
dissolution. and other combinations of
Il similar history are now negotiating
with the department of Justice looking
to a 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 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
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 aud 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
it's 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 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 ellmina-
ton is in contraventfon of the statute
only when the combination IS made fei
purpose OF ending this particular COM
petition in order to secure control of
and enhance prices and create mo-
nopoly.
Lack of Definiteness In the Statute.
The complaint is made of the stat
ute that ii is not sufficiently definite
in its description of that which Is for
hidden to enable business men to avoid
its violation. The suggestion is thai
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 a 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 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 sup
press competition and take the usual
methods for doing so and thus estab-
fish 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 clear path for honest mer.
chants and business men to follow. II
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 gittering
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, No.
Repeal or Amendment.
I see no objection, and indeed 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 a competitor by I'M
derselling him at a price so unproflta-
BILE as to drive him out OF business or