Bisbee daily review., 1913-11-11
TRUST BUSTING.

How for do motive and behavior justify trust how far do size ane power condemn it.
 These issues rose to the surface of earlier litigation under the sherman ac, they construed in the light of the given circumstances h those early the matter was simpH6ed by conclusive guilt the culprits oil and Tobacco The same issues are now again offered for what may be much finer dcmareaton in the first formal presentation of antitrust by the new Administration This weeks skirnish of argu rlert in attacking and defending International Harvester framed the controversy for the courts on lines that may roughly be up above The other conspicuous and important aspect kind dissolution demanded wheter the accused whole shall be sliced be shat tered.
 The atorney general who has repeatedly enunclated within and without the courtroom his devotion pure competition to haveas perhaps he had to have put his main emphasis size, form, growth and strength His brief after detailing the methods of orate merger through purchase ipso acto obitsrat ing chances for competing maintained that if the "were disposed" to exercise its power. and left unrestrained to do so it could crush every competitor
 Having set forth the statistics, the prosecutor appar emily srode step beyond the old understood of interpretation. when he declared as quoted: In- tent is wholly immateria Philantropic purpose can be placed justification the result" From the latter of these two sentences may incidentally be asked if colleges, churches. Carnegie libraries the Y. M c. A might concelyauIy have something to fear under promised antitrust program armed to the teeth? In any event conscious purpose cited by the court in the rulings would seem to be relegaed far back if banished b. the attorneygeneras dec laIaon giving place matters of structure dimension and percentage.
 Relying largely the mass Of trade evidence the trIst lawyers forth defense good conduct fol lowing proper motive. Or many typical trust abuses they professed innocence; they alleged many economic Lenofactious.
 Primarily the company extended not restrained the oountrys trade its organization to aniucrease in it's foreign sasiness from s1040O1OO to s51oOOOOO year. rom onefth nearly onehaf total bus substituted yearTound fer seasonal occupation Il supplied the better machines at prices that cid not rise with labor materiale On negative side, it did not coerce or crush competitors $S0OO9O0O capital having in; it did lower wages or limit product close plants impair quality dis eliminate reap undue profits, or oyer-capitaze its properties full capital earned less ran se paid than 6G Its good behavior gained trade goodwill, should together with the lauda5e first purpose of trade economy expansion. gain also legal sanction
 This is asserted to be the general recora of decade Incidentally rather issue was raised intertwined with general changing business codes a re- cent years The defense frankly admitted that some committed by officials outset were who'll ly eommendabe. but mainly either iron: make of reooupng certain receivable or from rrsry between division managers The significant remark by the taus: T don't suppose there business that has not had of this of thing. But the question is whether there was international Harvester make it gull ty under the Sherman law This opens up interest ing question of degree. may Illuminate further the requirement that guilt the Sherman be direct and substantial.
 The broad issue between paintG and defendant re mains as hrst outlined one sense it reviyes the ouch baIdly stated Roosevelt doctrine of @goodr and Dsd trusts. Can be any legal virtue, well as eeouernie trust if it is than just SC big absolutely or relatively?
 1T not, then the of satisfaction of the law by rigid divorce. of ownership remains another great issue by itself And whether farmers H be as vel