The New York Clipper (December 1919)

30 IRE NEW YORK CLIPPER December 10. 19 19 IRMA & CONNER Gov't Files Vaude Probe Brief Dainty Iitm. the Mary Plckfortf of the wire Dlr., Max OMrnderT (Continued from Pace 25) DOROTHY SOTHERN TRIO - - In a, New. C3mmmt, Pp-to-Date Offering of SINGING, VIOLIN AND DANCING LILLIAN ML BOBS CASEY & AGKERMAN IN VAUDEVILLE Dodos Clark w Dares i VAUDEVILLE REMNANTS Direction Joe Page-Smith LEILA DAVIS & CO. "AS IT MAY BE" Management—B RUCE DUFFUS TOOMEY BROS. A COUPLE OF CLEVER BOYS Ckas. and Dorotky DINGLE 'A BIT OF BLARNEY' PLAYS For STOCK REPERTOIRE, AMATEUR COMPANIES LARGEST ASSORTMENT IN THE WORLD. Books for home amusement Negro Plays. Paper, Scenery. Mrs. Jarley's Wax Works. Catalogue Free! Free! Free! SAMUEL FRENCH. Z* West «th St.. New Tork Chas Cy. WALT & DEMBO In Welcome Home Singing Talking (SL Comedy By Andy Worn Ben lillie MOWATT and MULLEN The Sun Material by James Madison IT Dir. Pete MacK VOLUMES OF HARMONY IN VAUDEVILLE Weston's Models THE ONLY ACT OF ITS KIND B«*ntiful, Fagrrnattng and Wonderful All Special Settings ED AH TOBE DELBRIDGE & GREMMER An artistic combination of aong and story. Introducing their own sons; hits: "KO-KO SAN*** "HASH BROWN BABY GIRL"; and "KEEP THE SUNSHINE IN YOUR HEART." Loew Circuit—Dlr. JOE MICHAELS agency, should be abolished; that Is to say. the a. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange should not be permitted to charge per- tormers a tee tor obtaining- employment in the B. F. Keith theatres; the Marcus Loew booking offices should not be per- mitted to cnarge performers a fee for appearing In the Marcus Loew theatres, and the same rule would apply to the various other circuits. This condition prompted an inquiry years ago (R. 1474): "Why should ' the . employee employ the employer and pay him a commission, for the privilege of being employed by the employer?" One of the objects of the Federal Trade Commission Act is to protect the competitive system from the dangers of combination. .Therefore, every combi- nation which by Its necessary effect or because of the character of the means employed, restricts competition, or mo- nopolizes commerce, la within the pure- view of the law. Monopoly is understood to include a condition produced by acts of individuals. Its dominant thought Is the power of ex- Ciiislveness or unity; in other words, the suppression of competition by the unifi- cation of interest of management, or it may be through agreement or concert of action. National Cotton Oil Company v. Texas. 197 U. S. 115. While the bDl to create the Federal Trade Commission was pending in the 63rd Congress, Senator Cummins stated: •The unfair competition -which. Is sought to be reached nils that vio- lence of competition conducted through unfair practices and methods, which must ultimately result In the extinction of a rival and the establishment of a monopoly, x X X It is that compe- tition which is resorted to for the pur- pose of destroying competition, or eli- minating a competitor, and of Intro- ducing monopoly. That is the unfair competition in its broad sense which this bill endeavors to prevent." (Cong. Rec p. 12149). Senator Newlands, speaking on the same subject said: "The Interstate Trade Commission Is organized with a view of laying bare the methods and the organization and the practices that constitute monopol>. It is organized for the purpose of aiding the courts in destroying monopoly. It Is organized for the purpose of aiding the Attorney-Generalln the prosecution of his duty in the destruction ot mono- poly, x X x." (Cong- Rec. p. 14113). Monopoly is an accomplished conspir- acy. A conspiracy to monopolize com- merce Is one thing, and it Is very much like a conspiracy in restraint of com- merce, but the monopoly is the result of a conspiracy. It Is the accomplished thing. Therefore, if a monopoly be ac- quired through a conspiracy, its con- tinuance after the conspiracy has ceased to exist, is In Itself Illegal; and the con- spirators are liable therefore although the business or the combination la regulated by a corporation which Is controlled by the conspirators. U. S. v. Patterson. SOI Fed. 697. The combining of the various circuits of theatres. Included in the V. M. P. -A- ln such a manner and with the result that the combination occupies a dominant position in the Industry and suppresses competition between the several circuits composing It. such combination consti- tutes of itself an undue restriction of commerce and its necessary effect being unduly to restrict competition, the pur- pose is immaterial. While- the combination does not em- brace every vaudeville theatre in the United States, Its control Is so nearly complete that there are not enough theatres outside the combination to en- able performers to -make a living playing in them. But to show that a combination Is Illegal, it is not necessary that there be a complete monopoly. The rule In this regard is stated by th? Court In United States v. E. C Knight. 156 U. S. L- as follows: "All the authorities agree that in order to vitiate a contract or combina- tion It is not essential that Its result should be a complete monopoly; it is sufficient if It .really tends to that end and to deprive the public of the advant- ages that flow. from free - competition-" While "the 'few remaining Independent theatres may continue for some time to hold out against the combination, it is clearly In the power of the combination to drive them out of business. This con- dition was. discussed in the case-of Mis- souri v. International Harvester Company, 237 Mo. 369; "wherein the'court said: "If the International Harvester Com- pany were disposed:to exercise, the power its' enormous-' wealth gives and If it were left unrestricted to do so. It could drive every competitor it now has from^Hhe field." *"" . ■ : -c- - iffl The Supreme Court of the United States, in affirming the decree in the Missouri case, 234 L. S. 199-210. said: "'ibis is one of the results which the statute was Intended to" prevent, the unequal struggle of individual effort against the power of combination." A combination In the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of commerce among the several states, u illegal and a.monopoly of any part of toe commerce- among the several states Is likewise illegal. The V. It. P. A. and its affiliated inter- ests is clearly a combination in restraint of commerce among the states and has a monopoly of certain parts of the com- merce among the States. A great deal of time has been consumed at the hearing by the respondents in attempting to show that in spite of its alleged Illegal char- acter, the conspiracy is a good thing for the vaudeville Industry in general; that the actors are now faring better than they would if the conspiracy were dissolved. Of course, it is obvious that this does not constitute a defense, for the Inquiry of the Commission -will be limited to whether the restraint of commerce and monopoly exists, and will cot be concerned with me question whether It Is possible that some good might come of the conspiracy. The respondents seem willing to admit that they crushed the "White Rats Acton. Union," but apparently attempt to show that they were justified In doing so. and overlook the fact that tln> very existence of the organization which stood in their way, constituted a violation of law and the fact that the "White Rats" organiza- tion needed crushing can in no way be- come material. The respondents .would have the Com- mission believe that their present organi- zation has greatly benefited the actor and has resulted in much good to the amuse- ment business generally. The same con- tention wbs made by the defendants In the Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Companv case, 226 TJ. S. 20. that because of the combination there had been Im- provement in the quality of the product and the public was on that account bene- fited, but it was held that the prohi- bitions of the statute cannot be evaded by good motives: "The law Is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits or for- bids, and the judgment of the Courts cannot be set up against it In a sup- posed accomodation of Its policy with the good Intention of parties and It may be of some good results." . The respondents also dsclalm any In- tention to restrain commerce or mono- polize the amusement Industry. In this connection see the opinion of the Court in United States v. -Reading Company, 236 U. S. 324. wherein It was held: "Of course If the necessary result Is materially to restrain trade between the states, the intent with which the thing is done Is of no consequence." To the same effex-i. see also United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, wherein it was held: The respondents also disclaim any in- have Intended the necessary and direct consequences of their acts and cannot te heard to say to the contrary." "In other words, by purposely en- gaging In a conspiracy, which necessar- ily and directly produces the result which the statute is designed to pre- vent, they are in legal contemplation chargeable with intending that result" From these authorities, it is clear that any attempt by respondents-to show good motives and the absence of Intent to re- strain commerce, would be wholly imma- terial. The Court In United States r. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 220 U. S.. 61, held:- • . . "It is the scope of such combinations and their power to suppress or stifle competition or create a monopoly which determines the applicability of the Act." But even if it were necessary to show that the respondents Intended to restrain commerce, the comprehensiveness of their combination would constitute proof of such intent- It is well settled that where a combination takes in ' so large a pro- portion of the units of any industry that those outside cannot hope to compete with it except by sufferance, It follows that one of the purposes of. the combina- tion was to prevent effective competition by those outside. It was so held in the Standard Oil Company case. 221 U. S. 1: "The unification of power and control of- petroleum and its products -which was the Inevitable result-in the combin- ing of the New Jersey corporation by the increase of its stock and the trans- fer to it of the stocks of so many other corporations, aggregating.-so vast a capital, gives rise, in and of Itself, is the absence of countervailing circum- stances; to'say. the-, least, and a prima facia presumption of intent and pur- pose to maintain the domlnancy over