Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

reached the Supreme Court the several judges in their opinion found:

"In 1902, when the negotiations which led up to the organization of the International Harvester Company were begun, competition between the large harvester machine companies in the United States was such as to reduce the market to a condition that was deplorable from the standpoint of the competing companies and it is not certain that its tendency was toward the ultimate advantage of the consumer of those machines. Whilst the tendency of fair competition is to produce a wholesome condition of the market, yet competition may be of such a character and so designed as to destroy the weaker competitors, leaving only the giant in the field, who then would have a monopoly of the market."

"The evidence also shows that the price of harvester machines was not materially higher after the New Jersey corporation entered the field than it was before, until 1908, when it was increased eight or ten per cent., whilst in the meantime there had been a greater increase in the price of the material and labor used in their construction. The evidence also shows that whilst harvesting machines were the chief products of the companies absorbed by the International Harvester Company, that company has greatly enlarged its business and extended it to many other farm implements and has thus put itself in competition with the many concerns that theretofore were and still are engaged in manufacturing such other farm implements, and the farmers generally have profited thereby. The evidence also shows that the machines manufactured by the International Company have been greatly improved in quality, and the item of repair material has been reduced in price and placed within closer reach of the farmer. On the whole, the evidence shows that the International Harvester Company has not used its power to oppress or injure the farmers who are its customers."

"In this case the court is required by the statute to pronounce a judgment of condemnation upon a combination

corporation. The New Jersey company had no plant, and maintained no office in Missouri, consequently was not a party to the suit.

which is proved by the facts as they appear in this record to have been so far beneficial to the community.” 1

'In Cote vs. Murphy et al. (1894), 159 Pa. St. 420, the court said: "The fixed theory of courts and legislators then was that the price of everything ought to be, and, in the absence of combination, necessarily would be, regulated by supply and demand. The first to deny the justice of this theory, and to break away from it was labor; and this was soon followed by the legislation already noticed, relieving workmen from the penalties of what for more than a century had been declared unlawful combinations or conspiracies. Wages, it was argued, should be fixed by the fair proportion labor had contributed to production; the market price, determined by supply and demand, might or might not be fair wages, often was not, and as long as workmen were not free, by combination, to insist on their right to fair wages, oppression by capital, or, which is the same thing, by their employers, followed. It is not our business to pass on the soundness of the theories which prompt the enactment of statutes. One thing, however, is clear: the moment the legislature relieves one, and by far the larger number of the citizens of the commonwealth from the common-law prohibitions against combinations to raise the price of labor, and by a combination the price was raised, down went the foundation on which the common-law conspiracy was based, as to that particular subject. Before any legislation on the question, it was held that a combination of workmen to raise the price of labor, or of employers to depress it, was unlawful, because such combinations interfered with the price, which would otherwise be regulated by supply and demand. This interference was in restraint of trade or business and prejudicial to the public at large. Such (a) combination made an artificial price. Workmen, by reason of the combination, were not willing to work for what, otherwise they would accept. Employers would not pay what otherwise they would consider fair wages. Supply and demand consist in the amount of labor for sale, and the needs of the employer who buys. If more men offered to sell labor than are needed, the price goes down, and the employer buys cheap. If fewer than required offer, the price goes up, and he buys dear. As every seller and buyer is free to bargain for himself, the price is regulated solely by supply and demand. On this reasoning was founded common-law conspiracy in this class of cases. But, in this case, the workmen, without regard to the supply of labor, or the demand for it, agreed upon what, in their judgment, is a fair price, and then combined in a demand for payment of that price. When refused, in pursuance of the combination they quit work, and agree not to work until the demand is conceded. Further, they agree, by lawful means, to prevent all others, not members of the combination, from going to work until the employers agree to pay the price fixed by the combination. And this, as long as no force was used, or menaces to person or property, they had a lawful right to do; and so far as is known to us, the rise demanded by them may have been a fair one. But it is nonsense to say that this was a price fixed by supply and demand. It was fixed by a combination of workmen on their combined

XXV

Enough has been said to satisfy the impartial reader that the drift is toward larger and larger coöperation, and that, too, despite attempts to legislate to the contrary.

Naturally manufacturers are timid about entering any form of association, for they cannot know at what moment they may be indicted as criminals. As a result more or less demoralization prevails in almost every industry, demoralization of prices, demoralization of methods. All the evils, all the unfair, oppressive and vicious practices of the old competition prevail.

The basic proposition of the Open-Price Association, namely, that men have the right to publish prices and make known all conditions surrounding business, is so far beyond debate or question that it is practically axiomatic; if they have that right it goes without saying they have the right to coöperate in any manner necessary to gather and publish the information.

Spreading of knowledge of facts and conditions is one of the enlightened efforts of the age. The theory is that if a man can be fully informed regarding all he has to contend with, he will be in a better position to get fair wages and fair prices.

The prime object of the Department of Agriculture is to enable farmers to get better crops and better prices. The

judgment as to its fairness; and, that the supply might not lessen it, they combined to prevent all other workmen in the market from accepting less. Then followed the combination of employers, not to lower the wages theretofore paid, but to resist the demand of a combination for an advance; not to resist an advance which would naturally follow a limited supply in the market, for the supply, so far as the workmen belonging to the combination were concerned, was, by combination, wholly withdrawn, and as to workmen other than members, to the extent of their power, they kept them out of the market. By artificial means the market supply was wholly cut off."

prime object of the Department of Commerce and Labor is to enable labor to get better terms and better wages.

It ought to be the object of some department to help manufacturers and dealers to get better returns for better products.

But so far the only solicitude betrayed by any department of the government regarding manufacturers and dealers is to force them to sell at the lowest prices under the most adverse conditions.

Class legislation and discrimination must go.

XXVI

Since this chapter was written, Congress has passed section 6 of the Clayton Law, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held constitutional exemptions of labor, agricultural, and horticultural organizations from anti-trust statutes.1

1 International Harvester Co. of America vs. State of Missouri. For a very complete review of the decisions pro and con on this, see the briefs filed in that case and the authorities cited from the briefs in the report of the opinion, 234 U. S. Sup. Ct., Lawyers' Ed., pp. 197-202.

CHAPTER XX

CONSTRUCTIVE LEGISLATION

I

We are on the eve of great things.

For more than ten years the country has been tugging at the leash of legislation that hinders progress.1

The Sherman law is destructive in purpose and application. State "anti-trust" acts are framed to tear down and destroy-what?

Coöperative movements that are the logical, the inevitable results of economic conditions.

II

Law has so little meaning to most men they look upon it as a cure-all and give it in large doses for every ill, whereas of all remedies it is the most difficult to rightly adminis

ter.

"In my judgment, the present law against pools, trusts, and combinations is ineffective to protect the people against combinations of capital. The courts may dismember an organization, but they will hardly attempt to confiscate its property; so that, after dismemberment, the ownership and control will continue substantially as before. To permit combinations to exist, and at the same time secure to the people the natural and legitimate benefits of such combination, is a problem not yet solved. To forbid, as the law in question does, the existence of all combinations that lessen competition compels a halt in the natural march of industrial development, and deprives the people of the benefits which should result from improved business methods."-By Judge Ferriss, in State vs. International Harvester Co. of America, 237 Missouri 369.

« ForrigeFortsett »