New-York tribune., 1911-12-09
E a. vanderIip Declares 1t viii
DiSorganize Business.
tSsAILS COMPETITION IDEA
Rank he.d d Says Return to Old
FasLi ~ Business Way
Tntenable.

,.-a,k A Vanderlip. president of the Ma
-, CIV Sank is Of the opinion that the
sSar,,an antitrust law is inadequate
Tor,,armore. ne contends that this laws
,or,corninrs are responsible for the cha
o,ic state of mind NOW universal among
business men and capitalists Mr.. VAN
Aoylp gives vent 10 his views in an aTucie
,,hUsbed i'm this weeks outlook.
7,,is article goes on TO say that the famil-
eorrces OF information. II their data
=. toIJoyed. indicate that in reality moth
g., serious is the matter Mr.. Nanderlip
,'s,o,aius that the demand on the part OF
a., consumers Is nearly normal ana that
hsrting and credit interests occupy a
Ind rosition. Despite all this Mr.. Van
,,or,in declares it is generally agreed that
business as a whole is facing most Sc
sons situation The Sherman law, he holds.
q responsible for this apparent anomaly.
The article in part follows:
The hypothesis upon which the enforce
mont OF the Sherman law rests is that the
remedy for the evils believed 70 be inherent
n large-Scalc business is TO break up big
orsanizaucus into smaller parts and force
8 return TO the competitive conditions thdt
existed prior 10 the formation of the organ
u believe this hypothesis is fundamentally
false I believe that the economic theories
upon which 10 is based are erroneous. l
balieve that the attempt to reach through
his means the remedy that is sought will
he futile. and that the practical result VIII.
IN exact proportion 90 the extent or the
eFori produce disorganlzation OF business
aud Industry 10 q degree wholly unrealiZed
nv those who rely upon this law 20 solve
This economic problem. Moreover. we are
c1lv getting fairly under way in this at
tempt at reaching a right result by wrong
r,stiod There are said 10 be hundred
great corporations yet 10 be brought TO the
bar II n were conceivable that we were to
press straight on and, without change In
ihe law I'm any particular. enforce II 10 the
mn limit in every case where II applied
cav mat. if that were conceivable. the dis
sster that would oVertake business would
he indeed iucalculahle.
g, Nj vauderljp states that he is not op-
tosed 10 any attempt 20 devise proper
means 10 control big business" but it is
his idea that the theory of control which
would enforce the return of old-fashioned
business warfare is untenable He says
he does not wish to see the Sherman law
repealed. however. if nothing be enacted
TO take rs place
"The Sherman law 10 me, ne con
trues Seems like turning the hands OF
the clock his reference being to the
practice in the House Of forcbly retarding
the passage Of official time when the end
Of p Congressional session IS near. The
article goes ON TO say:
However earnest and sincere tho cf-
forts may be 10 enforce that law and 20
compel people who have comprehended
tho waste and destruction Of remorseless
economic warfare 70 return 10 a state or
unrestricted competition. however strong
The belief may he that by legislation and
judicial judgments, by fines and i'm
prisonments 70 win be possible 10 compel
Tho abandonment Of q great economic
device and force business 10 wheel around
IN its tracks and return to the status of
fifty wears ago. the whole effort Will be
Is futile as the turning back Of the hands
of the legislative clock. Time ticks on,
st the laws be what they may. The out
ward measure Of time as shown on that
one clock may for few minutes be inter
rIpted. but its hands must be set up again
70 their rtghtful places before the sue
ceeding session OF Congress cOnVenes. Just
80 our industrial and commercial pToSre
Interrupted though II may be temporarily.
r9ust eventually synchronize with that OF
oihsr nations
rheYe arc many hasty thinkers who find
magic IN the word competition They
lcss sight of the fact that competition
carried 70 its logical conclusion often
tausee both competitors 70 lose money, its
end being merely question Of time and
rs result the insolvency or the absorption
of one competitor by the other and then
sn attempt 70 TecOup losses at public eN-
penSe It was the same sort Of unclear
thinking which led 10 the ragement
n She building Of competitive railway
lines They ended eventually in the
tankruptcy of practically every railway
n the country. compelling reorganization
iDto larger roads and trunk lines, with
hundreds OF millions of unnecessary cap
hallzatiou. which, IN the nnal analysis,
rsgms OF reckless unrestricted and uu-
Fasnufc competition. We know now
ast a double-track railway is six to ten
nhss as effective as a single track