The Tucumcari news and Tucumcari times. [volume] (Tucumcari, N.M.) 1907-1921, 1914-01-28

ib,r mud moro explicit lcgis lativc DELI
of the policy and meaning ol
mo existing antitrust law, Nothing
hampers business like uncertainty
Nothing daunts or disCouraEes II Ike
the necessity to take chances, 10 run
the risk of falling under the %
domination of the law before II can
make sure just what the law Is. sure
Is we are sufficiently familiar win
the actual processes and methods OF
monopoly and OF the many hurtinl re-
g,raiuts of trade 10 make definition
possible. at any rate up to ia" limits
of what experience has disclosed
These practices, being now abundant
~ disclosed. can be explicitly and
item by item forbidden by statu'" IN
such terms as will practically clint.
nate uncertainty. the law itself and
the penalty being made equally plain.
Would Punish individuals.
Inasmuch as our object aud the
spirit OF our action IN these matters
Is to meet business halt way in It's
Of splf.corrcction ana dis.
turh It's legitimate course as little rs
possible, we ought 10 see to 1t and
the Judgment of practical ana saga
tious men Of affairs everywhere
would applaud us ii VI did see to IT,,
that penalties and puni-hm"nts
should fall. not upon business itself,
10 us confusion aud interruption. but
upon the individuals who use the in
strumentalities OF business TO do
things which public policy aud sound
business practice condemn. Every
act of business Is done at the com.
mand or upon the Initiative OF som"
ascertainable person or group OF per.
sons. These should not be held indi.
vidually responsible and the punish.
mcnt should fall upon, not upon the
business organization OF which they
make Illegal use. II should be one
Of tho main objects Of our legislation
10 dlvcst such persons " their al"
porate cloak and deal with them as
with those who do not represent their
corporations. hut merely boy dolibor.
81. -. n,r.,.r ,..,.II 49,.
- 80. - . 49,.
,., ..
and liroc,or. ~, ,r,,i rYsi,c.. l.lf..
,.,.. ,nt,, .,
I 49,, , If. -. .
st.r.n,,o a,1 d,n.or
To Prohibit Holding Companies.
other questions remain which wilI
need very thoughtful and practical
treatment. Enterprises, in these mod
crn day, Of great individual fortunes
are ortpn'im,s i~ntcrlockod, not by be-
ing under tho control Of the same di
rectors. but by the fact that the great
or part of their ,tncL d.
owned ny Il single person or grouu
oi persons who are iu some way In.
timately related Co. interest. Wa mr..
agreed. I take II. that holding com.
pauirs should hc prohibited. hu, what
Of the controlling private |ugunrsnf,
Of individuals or actually cp.pp,ra'..,
groups OF individuals Shall the rr.
yatc owners OF capital stock be- suf
fercd 10 be Jhomsulto. I'm effect L,ld
Ing companies. vs.. no NOT wish
suppose, TO forbid Inc purrra.. -,
stocks by ans person who ~rl.ps,s p,
buy them In such quantities a.. bo c,,
AFFORD, or In any way arbitrarily =,
limit the sal" of stock. 10 L.r, fla.
purchasers shall Me- require r,. ,,,,
crs OF stock, when their yotirp mum.
in several companies which ,Ysr, =,
be Independent OF ono another ,,,l,
constitute actual control ,. mol.
election in which Of them ,u.v vI,
exercise their right 10 yotcq ThI
question | venture for vour r,,.il.r,
ton.
There Is another matter IN Shic,
imperative considerations nj i,s,,a
and fair play sucge,r ,bouph,,nI -,
medal action. Not only do many ,
the combinations eroc,.J ,r 1t
to be effected In tho Indystri,l ,,",'
work an injustice upon the MINI .
general, they also dIrec,Iv and
ously injure the indiyIduaIs -,
put out OF business I'm one urt,fr -,
mr. ountha. a.. " W."