Evening star., 1938-02-20
MONOPOLY BATTLE

had filed suit for dissolution Of the
United States Steel Corp The suit
was disposed Of in the lower Federal
Court in 1915. 1t was argued before
the Supreme Court in 1917 and re-
argued in 1919. In 1920 the Supreme
Court decided unfavorably to the
Government, without mentioning the
rule of reason, as such, but resting
its decision upon the conclusion that
whatever restraint of trade or mo-
nopoly did exist was not 'unreason-
able The court asserted that the law
does not make mere size an of
tense or the existence of unexerted
power an offense' Well, what does
that mean? That there may actually
be 100 per cent monopoly OF an in
dustry and yet be no violation of the
Sherman law. How can any gov
ernment hope to wipe out monopoly
in the face Of such decisions?"
He continued: "One instance. in
particular, is interesting as an Illus
tration of barriers erected to the ef-
forts Of the Federal Trade Commits
sion to enforce Section T. This is
the ruling of the Supreme Court that
even though the stock of a corpora
ton be acquired in violation of the
law, the commission has no power 10
remedy the situation if the stock so
acquired were voted 20 acquire the
physical properties before the COM
mission filed ats complaint. Since
there is necessarily lapse of time
between any preliminary inquiry and
the issuance of formal complaint,
offending corporations may readily
use it to acquire the physical prop
critics OF corporations whose stock they
have previously acquired in viola
ton of law
How can you reconcile such
facts as these with the pledges
Of both political parties to enforce
and strengthen the antitrust laws?"
you can't reconcile them. The
pledges are futile so long as the Su-
preme Court sits in Judgment upon
whether given monopoly or restraint
of trade is reasonable and in the pub
llc interest. Consider the last Re-
publican party platform. It stated
that the party favored the vigorous
enforcement of the criminal laws, as
we'll as the civil laws. against monop-
olies and trusts and their officials
Furthermore. the platform demanded
the enactment of such additional legis-
lation as is necessary to make 1t I'M
possible for private monopoly to exist
in the United States But that is
the point. We do not need addi-
tional legislation to fight monopoly
We need the exact enforcement of
that which we have The last DEM
ocratic platform pledged vigorously
and fearlessly to enforce the criminal
and civil provisions of the existing
antitrust laws and added. and to
the extent that their effectiveness
has been weakened by new corporate
devices or judicial construction we
propose by law to restore their ef-
ficiency in stamping out monopoIstic
practices and the concentration Of
economic power"
1T Is fight that has gone on
through the ages, and to each new age
it is newly vital. Away back 64o
years before Christ there was one
Thales of Miletus who used his knowl-
edge of astronomy to forecast an ex-
cellent wine crop. Whereupon ne
bought up all the winepresses of his
neighbors at low figure in advance
of the season. Come harvest time,
his neighbors were forced to buy back
their wine presses at exorbitant rates.
Aristotle makes reference to this
earlier bit of business in his 'Politicos'
and names the practice monopoly or
exclusive sale in the Greek.
YET today we still have much to
learn in controlling the evil. An
English writer prefaced his study of
the question in 1922 with the remark
that because the name and nature of
monopoly is more talkt of than well
understood of many he had thought it
not unreasonable to bestow some spe-
cial pains in the diligent investigation
thereof The conclusion Is one that
can be recommended in the confusion
of today's discussions of the subject.
Conflicting remedies and PHILOSOPHERS
are being advanced on every hand.
The question Is being entangled in
unnecessary complexities, shrouded in
obscure, sometime fantastic interpreta-
tions, and attacked and denounced
from such diverse and unrelated
angles that the whole matter has
taken on for the public generally the
aspect, indeed, of confusion worse con.
founded
There is one thing we can all un-
derstand. Abraham Lincoln voiced it
when he said this Nation could not
exist half slave and half free. Neither
can this Nation exist half monopolistic
and half free, for monopoly by its very
nature controls the freedom Of the
people. But we can have Nation
free Of monopoly II we enforce the
laws against monopoly. There is no
other way to realize the American
dream or to preserve the American
ideal"