Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1950-06-09

and an expert in the field of monopoly and
antitrust laws. His proposals were first pre-
sented in this form not to labor group, but
to the annual convention of the Independent
Bankers Association in Des Mones, Iowa, in
mid-April
BY DR. WALTER ADAMS
sGT'RUTH" said Mr. Dooley almost half
century ago, 'is a cruel boss. He don't
even pay you board wages and if you go to
work for him you better have good job on
the side" The fight against monopoly falls in
much the same category; for, while there are
many who pay lip service to the idea of free
enterprise there are few who are willing to
support effective measures to preserve it,
especially when their own vested interests
at stake
Nevertheless ii seems to me that if we are
to perpetuate system of economic, political
and social values-the kind of values that
have made America great-we must avoid the
road to further concentration of power, the
very road that has led to disaster in Italy,
Germany, Russia, and Japan. And if our busi-
nessmen are to avoid suffering the same fate
as did their brothers across the sea, it seems
reasonable that the enforcement of free COM
petition is the least regulation that they can
expect; 1t is minimum amount of regulation
which, for the sake of survival they must
accept cheerfully.
Granted then, that concentrated economic
power-whether in the field of industry COM
merce, or finance-is dangerous for the con-
tnued existence and health of a free enter
prise system; what can be done about it? Can
the trend be reversed and can it be reversed
without resorting to government ownership or
strict government control? think it can be
and on the basis of this belief / have, last
December, presented a proposal or a new
anti trust law to the Congress of the United
States.
My proposed law, which would deal with
non-financal corporations only has double
purpose: to preserve, wherever feasible,
competitive structure of industry while at the
same time providing safeguards against an
interference with business efficiency. In cases
where these basic goals come into conflict the
proposed law would forsake competition and
choose efficiency as the objective of public
policy.
Specifically the bill provides that corpora
tions which control 10 per cent or more of
commodity's supply Cor corporations with
assets totalling more than $4,000, ,000) must
register with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. These corporations must then file
pertinent data so that the Commission can de-
a case-by-ca approach and in ac-
cordancs with specific standards set forth in
the bill-whether the corporate structure of a
given firm, its position in the industry, or its
business policies and practices have detri-
mental effect on the interests of investors,
consumers, or the general public II they do,
the Commission can after opportunity for
hearing, order the dissolution of such firm or
"the divestture thereby or enforcement there
from OF any property, assets, securities
other holdings which not reasonably in
cidental, economically necessary or appro-
pirate to its efficient functioning or
which tend to hinder, obstruct, impede
render difficult the maintenance or achieve
ment of effective competition in one or more
lines of commerce"
This simply means that, if the Commission
were to discover that the du Pont control over
General Motors and u. S. Rubber was not eco
nomically necessary or appropriate to the ef-
hcient functioning of chemical firm-or that
such control was motivated primarily by de-
sire for monopoly--the Commission might or
der du Pont TO rid itself OF the GIN and u. S.
Rubber holdings. Similarly, il the Commission
were 10 find that General Motors was indeed
efficient producer of automobiles but that
its manufacture of diesel locomotives, re-
frigerators electric appliances, ct merely rep
resented an attempt to aggrandize the firms
size and economic power, the company might
be forced to confine its operation to the auto
mobile field. Finally, il the Commission were
TO find that firm like " S. Steel could oper-
ate as efficiently but less monopolstically at
one-third its precent size, an order to that eff
feet could be issued.
Here then is the central provision OF the
proposed law. II permits an administrative
authority, subject to judicial review, to order
. giant firm to "unmerge," wherever the eff
feet OF such order is likely to stimulate
competition and /or increase efficiency But
the bill goes further II leans over backward
to afford companies protection against wsnton
and arbitrary atomizaton This protection is
provided in the form of escape clauses under
which an industrial giant can avoid dissolution
or divestment orders by the Commission, il it
can demonstrate that its present size is neces-
sary for the attainment of efficiency or that
its business performance In the past has ma
terially benefited the general public Contri
buttons to the public interest can be estab-
lished simply by showing that the company in
question has participated in chronological
progress, passed savings in cost to con-
sumers, provided enough plant capacity to fill
consumer needs and actually used such capac-
ity TO the fullest, earned normal rate of prof
IL as compared to competitive industries, and
has benefited consumers by price reductions