Weekly journal-miner., 1911-09-20

UT nflfeS anu competition m ordef 70
 make business reasonably profitable.
 that in some way or other the statute
 could be construed as to make it ap-
 ply only to unreasonable monopolics
 and unreasonable exclusion of com.
 petition and control of prices.
 In my message of January 7th. 1910, on the interstate commerce and
 antitrust laws and federal incorpor.
 ation. used this language:
 Many people conducting great
 businesses have cherished hope and
 n belief that in some way or other a line may he drawn between "good
 trusts and bad trusts and that it
 is possible by amendment to the anti
 trust law to make a distinction under
 which good combinations may be per.
 mitted to organize, suppress competi.
 tion. control prices, and do it all le.
 gally if only they do not abuse the
 power of taking too great profit out
 of the business. They point with
 force to certain notorious trusts as
 having grown into power through
 criminal methods by the use of r..
 .eeal rebates and plain cheating, and
 by various acts utterly violativa of
 business, honesty or morality. and urge the establishment of some legal
 line of separation by which criminal
 trusts of this kind can be puni shed.
 and they, on the other hand. b. per.
 mitte1 inder the law Co carry on thcir business. Now the public. ma
 especially the business public. ought
 to rid themselves of the idei that
 such distinction is practicable or
 can be introduced into the statute
 Certainly rnder the present anti.
 trust law no such distinct; ;s,s
 IL has been proposed. however. that
 the word 'reasonable' should la uade
 part of the statute. and ;aen .Iat it should be left to the court to say
 what is reasonable restrain, of ..tde
 what IS reasonable suppress on of competition. what is reasonable mo.
 nopoly. venture to think tha, this IS 10 put into the hands of the conr, n power impossible to exercise o, nnv consistent principle which will ipsure
 the uniformity of decision essential 70 just judgment. It is to thrust upon the court burden they have no precedents to enable them to carry. ana to give them n power approacb. ing the arbitrary, the abuse of which might involve our whole judicial sys. tenn in disaster"
 This paragraph has been ouoted and spread on the records of the sen. ate on the motion of n senator who considered this to be at variance with the decision of the snpreme court. Instead of being at variance. it IS in exact accordance with those decisions.
 Again from those who have given up free competition as an economic Force that ought to he encouraged or enforced, and who are utterly op. posed to the spirit of the anti.trust law, we have frequently heard inc question "well, suppose you convict those large combinations under the statute, what are you going to do about iti You can. perhaps send some men Co the penitentiary for creating those combinations which have cheapened the cost of produc. ton and given you most of vour foreign trade and much of your prosperity. but what are you gojnu fo do with the capital invested. The plant and the organizations Ton can confiseate it and ruin your conn. try by a panic, but you can f divide such combinations into their compon. ent parts, for the line of division has d'sappeared into a commission own. ership." ""
 The court has met the issue and the question presented by the doubt. CTS and scoffers. It has vindicated the majesty of the law, has illustrat. ed the wonderful elasticity and adaptability of remedy by injunction In equity and has at the same time due regard for the wei. fare of the innocent business man and the community at large. who. in eatacIysm caused by the confis. | cation of such enormous capital as are involved in these combinations and . suspension of the legitimate part or their business, would be buried | with them in a common ruin.
 The court has exhibited courage | m facing the necessary result, in | enforcing the statute that, instead of prompting an attack on 1t, ought to make every American proud that we have such tribunal. It is now enforcing it's decree against the Standard oil company and against tpe iobaeeo company and it Is mak. | ing those great combinations divide themselves into component parts mn. der such provisions in the decree that an injunction shall be constantly operative to prevent by contempt | proceedings any assumption of the old relations of monopoly. This was m easier matter in reference In the standard Oil company, because It wns easy to divide up the yarious companies that were united by the ownership of stock of all the com. panies in a single holding company. In the tobacco company the decree could not be worked ont so easily. and 1t will be necessary to separate fhe properties owned by single com. panies and to distribute these plants into different and differing own. prships in order to create competi. lion between them and maintain that competition by the power of a con. finning injunction against any fut. are union or agreement to avoid fut. lre competitiOn If needed tbasa .,,n