The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1911-12-07
sEaeas tAs psepIsE q ths uaites


MH|A t.IArH ATIUIrHEN-
among me people N tie unites
sStnte1.
cofnmen;stssk owoerahlp
It has been aasiIri Cd that the pres;
ent prosrata and common ownership
In all these companies by former
stockholders ot The tsust would sinsure
q continuance of me same old single
control Of all the companies into
which the trust has by decree been
!dislntegrated. This Is erroneous and.
rs based upon ths assumed ineflcacy
and innoe,iotsness III judicial injnnc.
lions. Theacompanies are enjoined.
from cooperation OF combination;
they have differentimanagers; diree-
tors. purchasing ard sales agents IL
all or any, Of theS numerous st6cktiold.
,ers, reaching lnto the thousands, at
tempt to secure concerted action OF
the companies with view u the con.
Itrol OF the market their number rs SO.
large that such an; attempt could not,
well be iconcealedSand ITS prime NOV
ers and all Its ssbafticipants would be,
at once subject ocoptempt proceed.
fngs and imprisonment of q summary
character; The immediate result Of
the present situation will necessarily
be activity by all the companies i'm.
der different managers, and then com.
petition must follow, or there will
be activity by one company and stag
nation by another Only a short time
will inevitably lead ito "a change in
ownershipeot the stock, as all oppor-
tunity for continued cooperation must
disappear Those critics who speak
OF this disintegration In the trust as
d mere change ot dgarments have not
given consideration 10 the Inevitable
working Of the decree and Understand
little the personal, dagger Of attempt.
tfng to evade or ssts naughtIthe sol.
emn Injunction oil court whose OBJ.
feet Isl made plaln; by the decree and,
whose inhibitions.are set forth with q
detail and comptehensivepess, unex;
,ampled in the history ots equlty juris.
prudence.
Z The effect OF; these twoSdecisions has
lied to decreesId iSsolying the combina:
ton OF manufacturers Of electric lamps.
a southern wholesale grocers' associa-
,tion, an %interlocutorys decree against
the powder trustswith directions by
the circuit court compelling dissolu.
ftion. and other combinations Of a sim
tlar history are now negotiating with
the department ~ Justice looking to a
dlslntegratlon by decree and reorgan.
tzation In accordance with law. It
seems possible to bring about; these re.
organizations without general business
disturbance.
Movement for Repeal Of the Antitrust
Law.
But now that the antitrust act Is
seen to be effective; for the accomplish
.tnent Of the purpose Of its enactment.
We r met BY a;cry from nmany5differ-
eiit quarters, for lis repeal9 1Itj is said
to be obstructive .ots business progress,
TO be an attempt to restore old-fash.
ioned methods oi; destructiye competi.
Etion between7smallF Units, andsto make
impossible those useful combinations
,sgoti capitasiAndth tie tssapctlonS ~ the cost
Of production thatS,sfe essential to con:
itinueds prosserityS.and normal growth.
:. In the recent decisions the Supreme
court makes clear that there is moth.
ing in the statute which, condemns
combinations s5.of capital or mere big.
ness OF plant organized TO secure
economy in %proluction and a reduc.
tion OF its cost: lids only when the
purpose or necessary effect Of the or.
g%anization and maintenance Of the
combination or INCARCERATION OF i'm.
;mense size are the sitting OF icompeti-
ton, actual and potential, and the en-.
HANGING 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 necessarily eliminates competi.
ton between the units thus combined,
but this elimination is in contravention
Of the statute oniyswhen the combina.
tion is made for purpose Of ending this
particular competition In order to Sc,
cure control Of. aid enhance, prices
and create Satmonopoly.
Lack Of oefinItsness Ii tho Statute.
The complaint Is made Of statute
that 1t Is not suficiently definite III
Its description ofithat which Is forbid,
den, to enable business men to avoid
Its violation. The suggestion Is. thai
we mny have a scombInation; OF two
corporations. which may run on for
years, and that subsequently, the attor.
ney general may conclude that 1t was
a violation OF the statute and that
which was supposed by3 the combiners
to be innocent then turns QUITO be a
combination In violation OF the stat.
ute. The answer 10 this hypothetical
case Is that when men attempt to
amass %stupendous capital as will en-.
able them to suppress competition.
control prices and. establish a monop.
oily they know the purpose of their
acts. Men; do not doesnch a thing
without having itlclearlys In mind. IL
what they dolls merelyfor the purpose
Of reducing theScost iSEof production.
without tbo th,,i,bxt -