The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1911-12-07

SsSSstf! q SsG iSSS-"1t! &C SCHcSSa@ttSsfs
and Its prime movers and all its par,
.ticipants would be at once sub ject to
contempt proceedings and impriIrsoni-.
ment Of summary character. The
,immediat result Sof present situn-
ton will necessarily be activity by all
the companies under different mana
gers, and then competition must. fol-
.lo%$or' there will be activity bys one
company and stagnation bynanother.
0nly.a short time will Inevitably Head
to a change I'm ownership of the stock,
as all opportunity for continued CO.
operation must disappear. Those
critics who +speaklof this disintegra-
ton in the trust as a mere change of
garments have NOT given considefa-
eton' to the inevitable working of the
decree and understand little the per-
sonal Tdangs r attempting to evade or
|set at naughttthe solemn injunction
of a court whose object is made plain
by the decree and whose inhibitfons
are set forth with g. detail and COM
prehensiver sss unexampled in the
history of er:uity Jurisprudence. -.
Trusts at Hand.
/ The effect of these two decisions
has led to dec. ees dissolving the con-
bination OF manufacturers of electric
lamps, a southern Wholesale grocers'
asso ctatfon; an interlocutory decree
tasainst the Powder Trust with direc-
tions blythe circnit court compelling
|dissolution, and other combinations
Of a similar history are now negotiat-
| Ing with the Department Of Justice
looking to- "a disihtegration by decree
and reorganization, in accordance
with law. 1t seems possible: to bring
about these congratulations without
general business, disturbance.
Movement for Repeal of the Anti
, Trust Law.
/ But now that the. antitrust act is
seen to be effective for accomplish
ment"of the purpose sof it's enactment,
we are met by a cry from many diff
ferent quarters for it's repeal. It is
said to be obstructive OF business
progress. to be an attempt to restore
old-fashioned methods of destructive
competition between small units, and
to make impossibleithose useful COM
binations5of capital and the reduction
Of the cost Of production that are >es-
sential to continued 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
Eecpnomy in production and 8 reduc-
| ton or its cost. 1t is only when the
purpose or necessary effect Of the or
ganization and maintenance Of the
coordination or the aggregation Of inn
mense size are tho stififng&of compe-
sitfon, actual az | potential, and the
enhancing Of 5rices and establishing
a monnDoJ-| that the;: the statute is
violated. Mere size IS no sin against
the Law: THE mefging or two or
NOR" business plants necessarily
ell mates competition between the
Its thus combined, but this elimi,
nation is in contravention of the stat
ute only when the combination Is
made for. purpose Of ending this par
t1cular competition In order to secure
control Of, and enhance, prices and
create monopoly. .... ..... ..
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 rat which is for
|!D1dden, to enable business men to
avoid its violation. The suggestion
IS, mat we may have com bination of
TWO corporations, which may run %
Tor years, and that subsequently, the
Attorney General Day conclude that
was a=Yi Violation 1.-THE statute, and
that which was supposed by the COM
Diners to be inrnoGent then turns
out to be a com bin 2tion In violate 4
or the statute. The answer to this
NJ pothetical case is that when men
attempt to amass such stuDerdous
capital as will en- tie them to st1p-
press competition, ci nrto1 prices and
establish monopoly, they know tho
!rlFcse Of their acts. Men do not
10 such thing %;thout' having #
clearly in mind. If what thew 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 can not be
convicted at the time the union is
made, nor can they be convicted later,
unless 1t happen that later on they
conclude to suppress competition and
take the usual methods for doing so,
and thus establish for themselves a
monopoly. They can, In such a case,
hardly complain If the motive which
is disclosed is attributed
by the court to the original combina-
ton.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said Of the repeal Of this
statute and Of constructive legislation
1Dt8u1p5 fn orpom f1fSI, lbo