To those that came to see the problem in this light, acceptance of industrial monopoly with its complex task of fixing by public commission the prices on innumerable kinds and qualities of goods seemed at least premature. Rather, the first step toward a solution seemed to be the vigorous prevention of unfair practices, and the next step a positive regularizing of "fair competition."[19] The fundamental idea in this is the enforcement of a common market price (plus freights) at any one time to all the customers of an enterprise. By this plan potential competition would become actual, and small enterprises that were efficient might compete successfully within their own fields with large enterprises that maintained prices above a true competitive level. Even general lowering of prices by a large enterprise with evident purpose of killing off smaller competitors is unfair competition under this conception. It was for years recognized that the realization of this policy required legislation regarding uniform prices and the creation of a commission for the administration of the law.
§ 17. #The trust issues in 1912#. The campaign of 1912 presented in an interesting manner the three policies above outlined. The Republican party led by President Taft stood for the policy of monopoly-prosecuted; its program was the vigorous enforcement of the Sherman law. The Progressive party, led by Mr. Roosevelt, stood in the main for the policy of "monopoly-accepted-and-regulated"; its program called for minimizing prosecution and for developing a system of regulation of trust-prices. The Democratic party, led by Mr. Wilson, stood for the policy of competition-maintained-and-regulated, and the problem was to find means to strengthen and regularize the forces of competition.
In practice these programs doubtless would be less divergent than they appear. All alike proposed the retention of the Sherman law. The two proposals to go further were presented as mutually exclusive alternatives, whereas they necessarily must supplement each other in some degree. The Progressives did not expect all industries to become monopolies, and the Democrats tacitly conceded to monopoly-accepted the large field of transportation and local utilities it already had occupied. But there was a real difference in the angle of approach and a real difference in emphasis. The Democratic program (the somewhat unclearly) showed greater distrust of monopoly and greater faith in the possibilities of creating fair conditions of competition (which never had fully prevailed) in which efficiency would be able to prove its merits and monopoly would work its own undoing. It was the more logical for the country to give this policy at least a trial before adopting irrevocably the policy of general industrial monopoly. In either case competition actual or potential is the fundamental principle by which prices have to be regulated. Where competition is enforced it is by applying some general rules that create a general market price instead of discriminatory prices, but the fixing of the price is left to the competitors. Where monopoly is accepted prices must be fixed with reference to an estimated competitive standard, that which under hypothetically free conditions would just suffice to attract and retain private enterprise and capital.
§ 18. #Anti-trust legislation of 1914#. The anti-trust legislation of 1914, passed by the Democratic party to carry out its program, is embodied in two acts: the Clayton Act, laying down new rules; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, mainly to provide an agency with administrative and quasi-judicial functions to deal with unfair practices. This displaced the Bureau of Corporations, established in 1903. The Clayton Act forbids discrimination where the effect may be to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly. Due allowance may be made for difference in the cost of selling or transportation, but a difference is not required in such cases. It forbids contracts to prevent dealers from handling other brands. It forbids corporate ownership of stock in a competing corporation, forbids interlocking directorates in large banks and in other competing corporations, with capital, surplus and undivided profits aggregating more than $1,000,000. The Trade Commission Act in addition to its administrative provisions for investigation, reports, and readjustment of the business of companies upon request of the courts, declares that "unfair methods of competition in commerce" are unlawful, and both empowers and directs the Commission to prevent their use (banks and common carriers subject to other acts being excepted).
These acts are too new to have been given a fair test. They have, however, given evidence of exercising at once an influence upon the situation. They are imperfect in some details that will require amendment; but they mark the beginning of a new policy toward industrial monopoly, the results of which will be watched with the deepest interest.
[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, especially pp. 74 and 75.]
[Footnote 2: See Vol. I, pp 59, 68, 70-71]
[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, pp. 66, 67.]
[Footnote 4: 77 Miss., 476. Cited by Bruce Wyman, "Control of the
Market," p. 137.]
[Footnote 5: 19 R.I., 255.]