Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-12-01
The Latest Brandeis Model.
New York Globe.)

We once thought we understood the
trust doctrine of Louis D. Brandeis.
we believed we had mastered its in
tricacies both as presented IN its orig
inal form, by himself and as preached
in a derivative form by the distinguish
ed apostle Of the New Freedom. But q
reading of articles by Mr.. Brandeis III
the last two issues of Harper's weekly
persuades us that we were mistaken.
We are in the fog again concerning the
exact practical difference between reg
ulating monopoly, which he says Is all
wrong, regulating competition, which
he says is all right.
The feature Of the latest utterance OF
Mr.. Brandeis that is particularly dis
turbine in his attack on the decisions
of the Supreme Court invalidating con-
tracts as in restraint of trade, by
which the makers of articles fix the
prices for which the same shall lie sold
to consumers. Mr.. Brandeis invelghs
against price cutting and defends con-
tracts under which the producer OF
biscuit, for example. could control the
retailer and compel him to sell for the
exact price named on the box. james
G. johnson, the trust lawyer of Phil
adelpnia. is not more emphatic In up
holding the right to make contracts
and n have them enforced than is MI.
Rrandeis in his pHssent mood lie Is
led To introduce TO favorable attention
our old frie, 4 "rea sonable restraint OF
trade, and TO contend that contracts
in reasonable restraint OF trade are OF
social advantage.
The regulation of competition, which
Mr.. Brandeis deems desirable, comes
to the same practical effect as the So
called regulation Of monopoly, OF winch
he is a foe. There is more distihctioh
than difference. a statute dennins the
limits Of permissible cooperation the
doctrine of President Van Hise) Vouic
read about the same as statute re-
stricting the domain of competition. 10
authorize the makers and sellers or an
article to agree on a price at which the
product in which they were interested
was To be sold cannot be bad, II It Is
good to permit the maker ana seiier 10
enter into enforcible contracts concern
ing the price at which the article is 10
he sold. If the one thing is In restraint
of trade, so is the other.
On the trust question it IS difficult, as
the case of Mr.. Brandeis shows, to
avoid arguing in a circle. Is competi-
ton the ideal and monopoly the pest?
Then it is possible to demonstrate that
unrestricted competition is the parent
of monopoly. The object Of competition
is to destroy competition. So 1t Is nom
sense to say that the desire to monopo-
lie is a wicked thing. This motive al
ways has been in trade and always Will
be. 1t Is equally clear that men nave
seldom competed to their uttermost.
Competition has been kept in check
since the dawn Of time by open and
tacic agreements between competitors.
When the organizers of the uasts IN
their first form put their plants under
the control of common board OF trus-
tees they did not do new thing, but
an old thing. Competition must be
modified or qualified in some way II
there is to be competition at all.
A bill by Mr.. Brandeis for the regu-
lation Of competition would differ very
little from a bill prescribing the limits
of permitted cooperation. The former
might be largely negative and prohlo-
itory and the ether Affirmative and
permissive, bat they would come to
about the same practical effect. 1t
seems foolish. then, to debate. in the
spirit of the schaol.nen OF the miooie
ages, th1 abstract difIerenees OF Tue
two kinds Of regulation. There IS no
room for argument whec It IS agreed
a. Mr.. Brandeis now does, that there
are certain contracts IN restraint OF
trade that &.> reasonable and css-a-
BILE.