New-York tribune., 1920-03-02

against the corporations Can com.
PARSONS In other regards be made with
its competitors and by such. com
be assigned it? IT is greater in aize
and productive power than any Of its
competitors, equal or nearly equal to
them all, but it's power over prices was
not and is not commensurate with its
power to produce.
at is true there is some testimony
tending to show that the corporation
had such power, but there was also
testimony and course of action tend
ing strongly to the contrary"
Regarding the acquisition Of the
Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, JUS
tice McKenna said:
"It was submitted to President
Roosevelt, and he gave it his approval.
His APPROVAL of course, did not make
it legal, but it gives assurance Of it's
legality, as we know from his earnest
have approved Of nothing that had even
a tendency to it's detrment. And he
testified he was not deceived and that
he believed that the Tennessee Coal
and Iron people had property which
was almost worthless in their hands,
nearly worthless to them, nearly
worthless to the communities in which
it was situated and entirely worthless
to any financial institution that had
the securities the minute that any
panic came, and that the only way to
give value to it was to put it in the
hands Of people whose possession of it
would be a guaranty that there was
value to it,"
Competition Genuine, Vigorous
'From this digression we return to
! the consideration of the conduct of the
corporation to its competitors. Besides
| the circumstances which we have men,
toned there are others of a probative
strength The company's officers, and
| as we'll its competitors and customers
| testified that it's competition was gen
| uine, direct and vigorous and was re-
flected in prices and production. No
practical witness was produced by the
government in opposition. Its conten-
ton is based on the asserted size and
dominance OF the poration-alleged
power for evil, not the exertion of the
power in evil. Competitors, it is said,
followed the corporations prices be-
cause they made money by the imita-
ton. Indeed, the imitation is urged as
an evidence of the corporations power
Competitors, dealers and customers
of the corporation testify in multitude
that no adventitious interference was
employed either to fix or to maintain
prices, and that they were constant or
varied according to natural conditions.
Can this testimony be minimized or
dismissed by inferrfng that. as init
mated, it is an evidence Of power, not
OF weakness, and power eXerted not
only to suppress competition, but to
compel testimony? The situation is
indeed singular, and we may wonder
at it,
Illegal Influence Denied
"But there are other naradoxes. The
government does not hesitate to pre-
sent contradictions. In one, COM
petitors (the independents are rep
resented as oppressed by the superior
power of the corporation, in the other
they are represented as ascending
to opulence by initiating that powers
prices.
The suggestion that turks in the
governments contention that the ac-
ceptance of the corporations prices
IS the submission of Importance to ir-
rcsistible power is, in view of the
testimony of the competitors, unten-
able. They, as we have seen. deny
restraint in any measure or illegal
ment, therefore, is reduced to the as
sertion that the size of the corpora
tion, the power it may have, not the
eXertlon of the power, is an abhor-
renee to the law. To assent to that
to what extremes would we be led?
Competition consists of business ac-
tivties and ability-they make its
llte; but there may be fatalities in it.
Arc the activities to be encouraged
when militant and suppressed or reg
ulated when triumphant because of
the dominance attained? TO such
raterna'ism the governments conten-
tion, which regards power rather than
It's use the determining consideration,
seems to conduct. 1t seems to us
that it has for its ultimate principle
and justification that strength in any
producer or seller is a menace to the
public interest and illegal because
there is potency in it for mischief.
Abandoned Illegal Status
"The corporation was formed in
1901, no act OF aggression upon its
competitors is charged against it, it
confederated with them at times in
offense against the law, but abandoned
that before this suit was brought, and
since 191l no act in violation Of law
can be established against it except
its existence be such an act. This is
urged. as we have seen, and that the
that such interest is paramount to cor
poration or competitors. Granted
though it is difficult to see how there
can be restraint of trade when there
is no restraint of competitors in the
trade nor complaints by customers
how can it be worked out of the situ-
alton and through what proposition of
law? Of course it calls for nothing
other than right application of the
law. and to repeat what we have said
above, shall we declare the law to be
that size is an offense, even though it
minds its own business, because what
it does is initiated? The corporation
is undoubtedly of impressive size and
it takes an effort of resolution not to
be affected by it or to exaggerate its
influence. But we must adhere to the
law, and the law does not make mere
size an offence or the existence of un-
eXerted power an offence. 1t, we re-
peat, requires overt acts, and trusts
to its prohibition of the man and it's
rn -. IA