Bisbee daily review., 1911-12-06

StNtlal N0 AtfAAllNi'h ft'Nf't'af f'- normal growth.
 In tho recent decision of the su. nreme court makes clear that there is pothine in the statute which con demns combinations of capital or mere bieness Of plant organized to secure economy in production and a rednc- lion of is cost. lt is only when the purpose or necessary enect or the or and maintenance of the . combination or the aggregation or immense size are the stiling Of com petition. actual and potential. and the enhancing of prices and establishing i a monopoly. that the statute Is yio- lated. Mere size is no sin against ] the law The merging Of two or more business plants necessarily eliminates competition between the units thus combined, but this elimination is in eontraventiOn of the statdte only when the combination is made for purpose of ending this particular competition in order to secure con trol Of. and enhance, prices and ere ate a monopoly.
 Lack Of Definiteness in the Statute
 The complaint Is made O. the statute that 1t is not sufficiently definiate in it's description of that which is for bidden. to enable business men 10 avoid it's violation. The suggestion is. that we may have a combination Of two corporations. which may run on
 for years. and that subsequently the
 Attorney General may conclude that it was violation of the statute, and
 that which was supposed by the com
 hiners to be innocent then turns out
 to be combination in violation of the
 statute The answer to this hypothecaI
 case is that when men attempt to amass such stupendOus capital as will enable them 10 suppress competition.
 control prices and establish a monoD- oly, they know the purpose of their acts. Men do not do such a thing with out having 1t clearly in mind. If what they do is meremly for the purpose oi reducing the cost Of production, wiU,- out the thought Of suppressing com petition 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 it happen that later on they conclude to suppress comDetition 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 | subsequently is disclosed is attrib- uted by the court to the original com.
 hiuation.
 New Remedies Suggested
 Much is said Of the repeal of this
 statute and of constructive legislation !. intended to accomplish the purpose and blaze a clear path for honest
 merchants and business men to fol
 low. It may be that such a plan will be evolved, but 1 submit that the dis cussions which have been brought ou; in recent days by the fear Of the con tinued execution Of the antitrust law
 have produced nothing but gltterinG generalities and have offered no lint
 Of distinction O. rule of action as def
 mite and as clear as that which tho
 supreme court itself lays down in en
 forcing the statute.
 Supplemental Legislation Needed
 Not Repeal or Amendment
 see no objection-and ideed l car
 see decided advantages-in the enact
 ment Of a law which shall describe
 and denounce methods of competition
 which are unfair and are badges O
 the unlawful purpose denounced 1T
 the antitrust law. The attempt ana purpose to suppress a competitor bl underseIling him al price so unprof itable as to drive him out Of business or the making of exclusive contracts
 with customers under which they ar' required to give up association wit , other manufacturers. and numerous kindred methods for stfling competi , ton and effecting monopoly. shoul, be described with sufficient accurac. in a criminal statute on the one han' to enable the government 10 shorter : it's task by prosecuting single mis demeanors, instead of an entire cor spiracy, and on the other hand. C serve the purpose of pointing ou [ more in detail to the business com . munity what must be avoided.
 Federal incorporation Recommends ? In 9 special message to congress ol ? January :, l ventured to point ou ' the disturbance to business tha ] would probably attend the dissolutio 2 Of these offending trusts. I said: l But such an investigation and pos '- sible prosecution of corporation l. whose prosperity or destruction al l. fleets the comfort not only of stocl > holders but of millions of wage carr l. CTS, employees. and associated trades C men must necessarily tend to distur a the confidence Of the business con q munity, to dry up the now flowin | sources of capital from its places ( e boarding, and product halt in Ou !. present prosperity that will cause su r. fering and strained circumstance '; among the innocent many for tn ? faults of the guilty few. The questio s which l wish in this message to brin e clearly to the consideration and di n cussion of congress is wehether. k order to avoid such a possible bus d ness danger, something can not L. done by which these business comh l. nations may be offered a means. wit b out great financial disturbance, d changing the character, organiZatio a and extent of their business into or x. within the lines of the law under fe s. eral control and supervision, securiT
 compliance with the antitrust statut
 Generally, in the industrial cOml (. nations called trusts. the princip ls business is the sale Of goods in mar D. states and in foreign markets; ie other words, the interstate and fo S eign business far exceeds the busine se done in any one state. This fact vi c justify the federal government