The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1913-03-06

l
footing combination In restraint Of
the trade OF the defendants them
selves. and by engaging in a conspir-
acy In restraint II the trade of other
shoe manufacturers. It appeared in
the case that for a quarter OF CEN
fury practically all the shoes worn in
the United States have been made by
the help of machines. welt and sewing
machines. outside stitching machines
and metallic fastening machines,
there being a large variety of ma
chimes in each group. The combina-
ton Of which complaint was made,
tho United Shoe Machinery company
was formed by three groups of manu-
facturers. Of which one made 60 per
cent of all lasting machines made in
the United States, another 80 per cent
Of all welt sewing machines and 10
per cent OF all lasting machines, and a
third 70 per cent OF all metallic fast
ening machines made in this country.
The new corporation at present makes
at single new factory all the ma
chimes that had been made before at
different places, and directly or
through subsidiary companies carries
on all the commerce between the
states that had been carried on inde-
pendentfy by the constituent compa-
MES and firms before.
Combining itself to consideration OF
the question as to whether the organ
ization OF the new company consti-
tuted violation Of the antitrust law
and leaving out Of the discussion
further question as to the validity Of
the company's system Of leasing it's
machines. the court says that the is
sue involved does not require very
lengthy discussion. On the face of it,
Mr.. Justice Holmes, speaking for the
court, says, combinations are simply
an effort after greater efficiency. The
business Of the several groups as it
existed before the combination is as
stunned to have been legal The ma
chimes are patented, and making them
is monopoly In any case. The exclu-
sion Of competitors from the use Of
them Is Of the very essence Of the
right conferred by the patent and it
may be assumed that the success of
the several groups was due to their
patent having been the best. Inas-
much as by the Interpretation Of the
Indictment below and by admissions in
argument, It appeared that the COM
bination concerns did not compete
with one another, 1t is hard to see
Justice Holmes continues, why the
collective business should be any
worse than its component parts. He
adds
sTt is said that from 10 to so per
cent Of all the shoe machinery bust
ness was put into single hand. This
Is inaccurate, since the machines in
question are not alleged to be types
of all the machines used in making
shoes, and since the defendants share
in the commerce among the several
states does not appear But taking it
az true, we can not see any greater
objection to one corporation manu-
featuring 70 per cent or three COM
peting groups Of patented machines
collectively used for making a single
product, than to three corporations
making the same proportion. or one
group each"
In the view of the court, as ex-
pressed by Justice Holmes, the dis
indignation aimed at by the antitrust
law does not extend to reducing all
manufacturers to isolated communit-
les Of the lowest degree. II is. he sug-
gests. as lawful for one corporation
to make every part Of steam engine
and to put the machine together as it
would be for one to make the boilers
and another to make the wheels and
until the intent is nearer accomplish
ment than by such juxtaposition alone,
the, conduct can not be raised to the
degree Of an attempt to monopolize.
Predictions are made in Washing
no. C~1o r,f wi