The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-12-06
R1cHMoND vrRarNIAN-wEDNEsDA ar, DTcIxBBR 8,

the other NhaaAy ~ ssscs6sful ssssn-
struction Of this orSaniaAtaon shouaA
teach that tha eject Of enforcing this
statute ID not 70 destroy, but 20 re-
construct; not 10 demolish, but TO
re-create IN accordance with the CON-
ditiens which the Congress has de-
clared shall exist among the people
Of the United States"
1t has been assumed that tho pres
ent pro rata and common ownership In
ALI these companies by former stock
holders Of the trust would insure \
continuance Of the same old single
control OF ali the companies into which
tho trust has by decree been disin-
tegrated. This 10 erroneous and II
based upon the assumed inefficacy and
innocuousneas OF judicial injunctions.
The companies are enjolned from CO.
operation or combination; they have
different managers, directors. pur-
chasing and salea agents. II all or
many Of tho numerous stockholders,
reaching into the thousands attempt to
secure concerted action of the COM
panies with q, view to the control Of
the market, their number 10 90 large
that ouch an attempt could not well
be concealed, and its prime movers
and all Its participants would be A.
once subject to contempt proceedings
and imprisonment Of a summary char
acter Tho immediate result OF the
present situation will necessarily be
activity by all the companies under
different managers. and then COMPETE
ton must follow. or there viii be &C.
tivtty by one company and stagnation
by another. Only q short time will
Inevitably lead to q change in owner
chip Of the stock. az all opportunity
for continued cooperation must dis
appear. Those critics who speak Of
this disintegration in the trust as a
mere change Of garments have not
given consideration to the inevitable
working Of the decree and understand
little the personal danger OF attempt
Ing to evade or set At naught the sol.
emn Injunction OF a court whose oh.
ject IL made plain by the decree and
whose inhibttions are set forth with
detail and comprchensiveness unex-
ampied In tho history Of equity turis-
prudence.
Voluntary REPRESENTATIONS o. o4hs-
Trusts at Hand.
The effect OF these two decisions has
led to DEGREES dissolving the combinA-
ton of manufacturers Of electric lamps.
q southern Wholesale grocers assocta-
ton, an intsrl0cutory decree against
the Powder Trust with directions b.
the circuit court compelling dissolu-
tion, and other combinations OF 4 SIM
liar history are now negotiating with
the Department Of Justice looking TO
disintegratton By decree and reor.
ganization In accordance with law. II
seems possible to bring about these
reorganizations without general bust
ness disturbances
Movement For Repeal Of tho Anti
Trust Law.
But now that the antitrust act II
seen to be effective for the accom-
plishment of the purpose OF its enact
Inent, We are met by cry from many
different quarters for Its repeal 1t 10
said to be obstructive OF business
progress, to DO an attempt to restore
old fashioned methods OF destructive
competition between small units, and
To make impossible those useful COM
b.nations Of capital and the reduction
of the cost OF production that are es-
sential to continued prosperity ana
normal growth.
In the recent decisions the Supreme
Court makes clear that there Ia moth
: ing in. the statute which condemns
combinations Of capital or mere big
ness OF plant organized to secure
economy In production and q reduc-
tion Of it's cost II Is only when the
purpose or necessary effect OF the or
ganixation and maintenance OF the
combination or the aggregation OF I'M
mense size are the sitting of compe-
tition, actual and potential, and the
enhancing Of prices and establishing a
monopoly. thatsk IN statute 10 violated.
Mere size Is no Gin against the law.
The merging OF two or moro business
plants necessarily eliminates competi-
tion between the units thus combined,
but this elimination is In contraven-
ton of the statute only when tho COM
binat!on is made for purpose OF end.
ing this particular competition in order
to secure control OF, and enhance.
prices and crsate q monopoly.
Lack of Deanfteneas In tho Statuee,
The complaint II made OF the
statute that It Is not ssf1cientiy def
mite In Its description Of that which
Is forbidden. to enable business men
to avoid its violation. Tho sugxes-
ton Is. that we may have a COM
bination Of two corporations, which
may run on for years, and that sub
sequentiy the Attorney General may
conclude that IL was q violation Of
the statute, and that which was sup
posed by the ccmbiners TO be limo
cent then turns out to be q combi-
nation In violation OF the statute. The
answer to this hypothetical case Is
that when men attempt to amass such
stupendous capital ~ win enable
them to suppress competition. con-
troll prices and establish a monopo-
~, they know the purpose OF their
acts Men do not do such a thing
without having It olseriy in mind.
II what they do r merely for the
purpose OF reducing the cost Of pro.
duction, without the thought Of sup
" NJ