Valdez daily prospector., 1913-01-03
FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1913.
THE STEEL TRUSTS DANGER.

Dissolution of the Hartman merger caused a furry in Wall street, not only because of it's effects on that combination alone, but because of it's bearing on other antitrust suits now pending. The most important of these is that against the steel trust; which has been held up as the model trust, the trust which would never dream of suppress ing competition, but which was organized solely to effect econ- omy in production. It has, how ever, been eloquently silent asto how this economy benefited the public or anybody except it's own stockholders.
 The merger decision presages decision adverse to the steel trust because it holds that the possession of the simple power to suppress competition renders combination illegal. In his opin- ion Justice Day said:
 Ut is the scope of such com- binations and their power to sup prdss or stifle competition or cre- ate monopoly which determines the applicability of the act"
 Justice Day says that it makes no difference whether the com- bination is effected through a holding company, as in the Nor thern Securities case, or through direct ownership of the controll- ing interest in the stock of one corporation by another. He says on this point:
 "The domination and control and the power to suppress"com- Detition are acquired in the one case no less than in the other' and the resulting mischief, at which the statute was aimed, IS equally effective, whichever form is adopted.
 In thus interpret ing the laW' the Supreme Court goes beyond President Taft. for he said m ms message on the trusts in Der"nn- ber, 1911:
 "When men attempt to amass such stupendous capital as will enable them to suppress compe- iition. they know the pur- pose of their acts. If what they do is, meraly for the purpose of reducing the cost of production, without the thought of suppress ing competilio then they can not be convicted at the time the union is made. nor can they be convicted later unless It happens that later on they con- clude to suppress competition.
 The Supreme Court, on the oth- CT hand. holds that the simple possession nf the power to sup press competition, whether the procuring of that power be the purpose OF not, or whether that nower be used OF not, renders a combination illegal. It can hard- ly be disputed that the steel trust, controlling from 50 to 55 per cent. uf the steel-producing ca pacitv and much larger propor- lion of the raw material, has the power to suppress competition. It may be fairly contendcd that the effect of thd Gary dinners was an actual use of this power. That the trust saw how perilous was it's position is evidenced by it's cancellation of the Gr'at Nor thern ore lease.
 The weak legal position of the steel trust furnishes an explana- tiOn of the political activity or George w. Perkins. He bases his hopes of saving the trust from dissolution upon control of the government by party which will legalize the trust. It is scarcely probable that the hundreds Of thousands of dollars he has cX- pended on his political enterprise came entirely out of his own pocket, when others are equally interested with him in the at tainment of his purpose.