The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1911-12-05

pOrtunity for continued cooperation
must disappear. Those critics who
speak Of this disintegration IN the trust
as . mere change of garments have noe
given consideration 10 the Inevitable
working Of the decree and understand
little the personal danger OF attempt
ing to svade or set at naught the SOL
emn Injunction OF a court whose object
ts made plain by the decree and whose
inhtbtttons are set forth with detail
and ccmprehensiveness unexampled In
the history Of equity Jurisprudence.
Voluntary Reorganization Of Other
Trusts at Hand.
The effect OF these two decisions has
LED 10 decrees dissolving the combina-
ton OF manufacturers of electric
lamps. southern wholesale grocers'
association, an tnteFlocutory decree
against the powder trust, with direc.
tons by the circuit court compelling
dissolution. and other combinations of
similar history are now negotiating
with the department Of justice hooking
to disintegration By decree and re-
organization In accordance with law.
1t seems possible to bring about these
reorganisations without general busi-
ness disturbance
Movement For Repeal Of the Anti
trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act Is
seen to be effective for the accomplish
raAnf ~ tha r.,xvrscmA 80 49, n~.a a&,-1n,,k
We are met by cry from many differ
ent quarters for it's repeal II is said
to be obstructive OF business progress.
to be an attempt TO restore old fash
ioned methods of destructive competi-
ton between small units and to make
impossible those useful combinations
OF capital and the reduction Of the cost
of production that are essential to con.
tinued 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 econ.
omy In production and a reduction Of
its cost 1t Is only when the purpose
or necessary effect Of the organization
and maintenance OF the combination
or the aggregation OF immense size are
the sitting OF competition. actual and
potential, and the enhancing of prices
and establishing . monopoly that the
statute Is violated. Mere size Is no
SIN against the law. The merging Of
two or more business plants necessaFi
ly eliminates competition between the
units thus combined, but this elimina
tion is IN contravention Of the statute
only when the combination In made for
purpose OF ending this particular com
petition In order to secure control OF
and enhance prices and create a mo
nopoly.
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 that which is for
hidden to enable business men to avoid
its violation. The suggestion Is tina:
we may have a combination of two
corporations which may run on for
years and that subsequently the at
torney general may conclude that 1t
was violation Of the statute and that
which was supposed by the combiners
to be innocent then turns out to be q
combination in violation Of the statute
The answer TO this hypothetical case
Is that when men attempt to amase
such stupendous capital as win enable
them to suppress competition, eontrei
%wsn nG kaff@h Aha
know the purpose Of their acts Mea
do not do such thing without havsnt
1t clearly In mind. II what they do l.
merely for the purpose Of reducing the
cost OF production, without the though
Of suppressing competition by use of tht
bigness OF the plant they are creating
then they cannot be convicted at the
time the union Is made, nor can thsy
be convicted later unless It kapper
that later on they conclude to sur-
press competition and take the usua
methods for doing so and thus estab
Iish for themselves q monopoly. They
can Ia such q case hardly complain #
the motive which subsequently is dtS
closed is attributed bJ the court 10 the
original combination.
New Remedies Suggested.
Much is said of the repeal OF this
statute and Of constructive Legislation
intended to accomplish the purpose
and blaze clear path for honest mer
chants and business men to follow. II
may be that such plan VIII be
evolved, but submit that the discus
siens which have been brought cut IL
recent days By the fear Of the cor
tinued execution Of the antitrust Law
have produced nothing but giitterint
generalities and have offered no Isnt
OF distinction or rule OF action 90 den
mite and as clear as that which the su
preme court itseif lays down IN en-
forcing the statute.
Suppssmsntai Legislation Needed, Not
Repeal or Amendment.
see no objection. and indeed can
see decided advantages. In the enact
ment Of q law which shall describe
and denounce methods of competition
which are unfair and are badges of the
unlawful purpose denounced In the
antitrust law. The attempt and pur
pose to suppress competitor by M.
dersslltng him at price 30 unprofta
bic as to drive him out OF business or
the making Of exclusive contracts with
customers under which they are re
quired to give up association with 9th
er manufacturers and numerous kin
dred methods for stifiing competition
and effecting monopoly should be de
scribed with sufficient accuracy in
criminal statute on the one hand TO