New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-12-06
about these reorGanizatlGns WITHOUT &c"
eral business disturbance.
Movement for Repeal OF Law.

/ Hut now that the antitrust act is seen
/ IA lac effective for the Accomplishment OF
| the purpose Of It's enactment we are
met by a cry from many iherent quar-
/ ters for its repeal. IL is said to be 90
/ structiye of business progress. 10 be an
attempt to restore old-fashioncd meth-
DDS of destructive competition between
small units and TO make impossible those
useful combinations Of capital and the
reduction Of the cost OF production that
are essential TO continued prosperity anu
! normal growth.
! in the recent decisions the Suprcm
Court makes clear that there Is nothins
/ i'm the statute which condemns comm :.
nations Of capital or mere bigness OF
plant organized 10 secure economy ID
pI oduction and reduction Of its cost
/ 1t is only when the purpose or neccs-
sary effect Of the orga nization and MAIN
tenance OF the combination or the AK
4 gregation Of immense size IS me
Sitting Of competition. actual ana pc
tential, and tho enhancing Of prices ana
| esta blishing 4 monopoly, that the stal-
ute is violated. Mere size Is no SIN
against the law The merging OF two
or moro business plants necessarily
eliminates competition between the units
thus combined, but this elimination -
I'm contravention Of the statute only
when the combination is made for pur-
pose Of ending this particular conpeu,
ton i'm order to secure control or. anu
enhance. prices and create monopoIA'
Lack of Cefinfteness in Statute.
The complaint is made Of the statute
that il is not sufficiently definite in It's
description of that which is forbidden
10 enable business men to avoid us Nlo-
lation. The suggestion is that We may
have 2 combination Of two corporations
HIGH may run Oh for years and that
subsequently, the Attorney General may
conclude that IL was a violation or the
statute and that which was supposed ny
the combiners 10 he innocent then turns
out To he a combination in violation ~
the statute. The answer 10 inns hNpo-
thetica case Is that when mon attempt
10 amass such stupendouS capital AS
will enable them TO suppress competi-
ton. control prices and establish mo
nopGly they know the purpose or Their
acts. Men do not do such thing with
out having it clearly in mind. If what
they do is merely for the purpose of re
duCing the cost Of production, without
the thought of suppressing competition
by use of the higness If the plant they
are creating, then they cannot he con
victed at the time the union Is made;
nor can they he convicted later, unless
II happen tnd1 later on luf1 'pi'l'''
10 suppress competition ana take the
usual methods for doing SO. and thus es-
tablish for themselves monopoly. They
can, i'm such a case hardly complain II
the motive which subsequently Is dis
closed in attributed by the court to the
original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said Of the repeal Of this stat
~
tended to accomplish the purpose and
blaze a clear Path for honest merchants
and business men 10 follow. II may be
that ouch = plan will he evolved, hut ]
submit that the discussions which have
been brought ont in recent DAYS by the
fear of the continued execution Of the
antitrust law have produced nothing
but glittering generalitier and have Of
fered no line Of distinction or rule Of
action as definite and az clear as that
which the Supreme Court itself lays
down I'm enforcing the statute.
Supplemental Legislation Needed.
see no obiecton--and indeed | can
see decided advsntages--in the enact
nnert OF a law which shall describe and
denouncs methods of competition which
are unfair and are badges OF tho I'M
lawful purpose denounced in the anti
trust law. The attempt and purpose TO
suppress a competitor by undsrsellinq
him at a price so Improbable az TO
drive him out Of business. or the making
Of exclusive contracts with customers
under which they are required TO give up
association with other manufacturers,
and numerous kindred methods for sti
fling competition and eHecting monopoly.
should be described with sufficient aceu-
racy in criminal statute, on the ono
hand, to enable the government 10 short
en- it's task by prosecuting single n,isde
meenors instead OF an entire conspiracy,
and, on the other hand, TO serve the pur-
pose OF pointing out more in detail to
the business community what must be
avoided.
In a special message 10 Congress on
January I. 1910. / ventured to point ont
the disturbance 10 business that would
probably attend the dissolution Of these
offending trusts. ] said
But such an investigation and possible
prosecution Of corporations whose pros
not only Of stockholders but Of millions Of
wage earners. employees, and associated
tradesmen must necessarily tend to disturb
the confidence Of the business community
10 dry M the now flowing sources Of cap
ital from its places NJ boarding. and pro
duce halt I'm our present prosperity that
will cause suffering ard strained Circum-
stances among the innocent many for the
which | wish In this message 10 bring
clearly 10 the consideration and discussion
OF Congress Is whether. i'm order TO avoid
such possible business danger, something
cannot be done by which these business
combinations may be offered a means. with
out great financial disturbance. of changing
the character, organization and extent OF
their business into one within tho lines OF
the law under federal control and supervi-
sion, securing compliance with the anti
trust statute.
;,,An nj
called trusts" the principal business Is the
sale of goods I'm many states and in foreign
markets: I'm other words. the interstate and
foreign business far exceeds the business
done I'm any one state. This fact will JUS
tify the federal government in granting
federal charter TO such a combination 10
make and sell I'm interstate and foreign
commerce the products of useful manufact-
IRE under such limitations AS viii secure A
compliance with the antitrust law. II Is
possible so 70 frame q statute that while
n offers protection 10 federal company
against harmful, veyatlouS and nnneceS-
sary inva sion by the states, II shall subject
il to reasonable taxation and control by the
states with respect to lis purely local Dust
ness.
Corporations organized under this act
should be prohibited from acquiring and
holding stock in other corporations leNcepi
for special reasons. upon approval 10y the
proper federal authorlty,' mus avoldlns nc
creation under national auspices of the
holding company with subordinate corpora
tons in different states. which has been
such an effective agency in the creation of
the great trusts and monOpoes.
II the prohibition of tho antitrust act
against combinations in restraint OF trace ~
to be effectively enforced. 1t IS essential
that the national government shall provide
for the creation OF national corporations to
carry on a legitimate business throuShou.
the T-nited states The conflicting laws OF
tho different states Of the union with re-
spect 10 foreign corporations make II dill
cult. IF not impossible. for on" corporation
10 comply with their requirements so as to
carry on business in A number OF different
states
I renew the recommendation of tho
enactment of general law providing
for the voluntary formation Of COrpOra-