Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-11-04

rated and it is true there no sole right given
them by contract on the face of the charter. The
charters must be construed in connection with the
law Of 1927. No direct grant by any King of Great
Britain to any person or body polite of the sole
right to the profits of a trade, conveyed more
manifest intent of monopoly than does the act of
1927 and the charters enacted before and after
wards. None ever established a more thorough,
practical monopoly for more than thirty years, ex-
Guiding all parties from rising up here as YEATNAN,
WoODs & Co. did, and engaging in this business on
their own responsibility and property. As there
are probably twenty men whose estates wonld cash
at 100000 now in the State, where there was one
in 1927 there is a still greater probability now that
they would rise up and employ their cepltalas YEAT
MAN WOODS & Co. did, than at that time.
The result of this legislation has been establish
by general law and charter, practical monopoly.
What are the authorities bearing on this subject?
HAWKINS says: 1t hath been adjudged that the
Kings grant to any person or corporation of the
sole right import any merchandise is void wheth
er prohibited or not that is if the importation of
Spanish wines was prohibited by act of Parliament
to encourage the growth of wine in England or for
other cause, and PHHP and MARY suspended the law
ampton to import wine if and an action were brought
against the corporatOrs for the violation of the act
of Parliament, the importers would be liable to the
penalties of the act Their license would be void,
for the King cannot suspend the law, so to pro-
duce monopoly in favor of particular individuals
or Gorporators.- Tile PrerOgatiUe; Inst 81;
3 Inst. 1872.
But if, on the other hand, all the citizens of En-
gland were entitled by the law of the land" by
the old and rightful custom to import Spanish
wines, and PULP and MARY issued their grant to
the corporators of Southampton giving them the
right to import Spanish wines and prohibiting all 9TH
ers from importing Spanish wines, whether in the
face Of the grant by proclamation, the grant
would be good as to the right to import Spanish
wines, fo2 the corporators had the right to import
Spanish wines before. and the grant of Pulp and
MARY gave them no right which they did not have
before: but the prohibition to others would be
void for they had no right TO suspend the law auth
orizing the importation, so to create a monopoly
in favor of the corporators Of Southampton. If,
then Banking were lawful trade to the profits of
which all the citizens of the State were entitled
and the Legislature makes this trade unlawful as to
the great body of the people, and declares them liza
bic to severe fine if they presume to exercise it
without grant and then grant the right to certain
corporators, is not this a clear and unquestOnable
case of monopoly; and would not the prohibition
be void and the whole of the citizens Of the State
restored to their natural rights to pursue lawful
calling? 1t seems difficult to distinguish between the
two cases.
The leading case on the subject of mOnopoles is
reported in 18th COKE decided in the midst of the
excitement against Queen ELIZABETH. in consequence
of her grant of numerous and oppressive monOpO-
lies. The action wasby DOGGY, assignee of BOwEs,
against ALIEN, for an invasion Of his rights of mo-
monty. The declaration stated that the Qaeen
granted by patent to BowEs who assigned to DoRCY,
the sole right to import, manufacture, and Vend
playing cards for twelve years, which was secured
for twenty-one years that no other person should
import manufacture, veud them, on pain CT fine
and Imprisonment; and that, in consideration of
said grant he bound himself to pay to the Queen
one hundred marks per snnum and that defendant
ALLEN had manufactured and sold one hundred gross
of playing cards.
The defendant replied that he was free citizen
Of London and had the right to manufacture and
vcnd playing cards. By the court; it is monopoly.
All trades which employ men are profitable to the
Commonwealth, aud therefore grant to the plaintiff
of the sole right import manufacture, and vend is
against the liberty of the subject. Il tends to the
nnoverishn1ent of artificers who before bsS lain
tanned themselves and families in the trade. The
grant of the sole right 90 the pursuit of any me
cbauicaI artifce is not only damage 70 those who
exercise the same trade. but to ali others for the
prce of the commodity viii be raised to all others.
He who has the sole right rs eel viii put whatever
price he pleases on the article sold.
The second incident to a monopoly is that the az
tiee ssd Is not so good and merchantable as it was
before for the patoHtee regarded his own profit and
not the good Of the Commonwealth. Such charter
Of monopoly IS against divers gets Of Parliament
which extend to all things yeRdablR.
When Parliament passes an act which restrains the
importation of foreign fabrics, to the intent that
the subjects of the realm might apply themselves to
the making of the same, and thereby maintain them
selves and their families, > royal grant to any
one for the sole importation Of such prohibited
article Is against common law and 2 monopoly,
or ts is not TO maintain the poor artifcer, but to
destroy his means of substance.
These authorities would seem to sustain the posi-
ton very satisfactorily thst Banking being lawful
trade the prohibition on the of the people with
the express purpose, manifest on the face of the
probbtorv act. of securing to the grantees of the
government the sole right thereto is creating mo
nopQy as unqgestionably as ELIZABETH or CHARLES
did in their grants that e prohibition on the free
dom Of trade is void; THAI the Legislature violates
the Constitution when it passes any such enactment
disposng Of the lawful trades to few porsQns that
such acts are of no eject and the citizens of the
State have the right to establish banks Of deposit
and circulation just as if such law existed.
There are some features in the bank charters that
may deserve a passing notice.
The fact that these chartered companies were
open to all who should succeed in getting the stock
does not change their character As soon as the stock
was taken tbo subscribers the sole grantees of
the State The celebrated charter Of CHARLES list for
the sole manufacture and vending of soapi London
was an open stock company, according to HHLUN |
and made to eyade the statute Of p JAMES. Il was
invented bv NOV, Attorney General. and vas the /
precedent of the monopolies which aided in a very
great degree, in taking CHARLEss head from his |
body and this fraudulent evasion of the statute has
brought tbs Attorney General down to posterity
as man of 'yepal diligence and prOstituted learn
ing" All the leading historians do not hesitate to
denounce this charter as establishing monopoly.
bringing all the evils Of direct grant by name to in
diyiduas.
HIVE, HALLUN and AynERsoN regard It mouepo-
ly in violation Of the great charter and 2lst JAMES,
such grant by name as the grant OF Queen ELIZA
BETH to Sir WALTER RALEIGH, Of the sole right to |
manufacture and vend tin in England might avoid |
the contest for stock which might arise in the case
of the soap charter of CHARLES but both were char
acterized and required monOpolies, equally inju-
Yious TO the public Sir WALTER and the company of
soap boilers were equally possessed of the sole right
and were equally the grantees of the crown There is
not stakeholder ~ bank IN the State who does
not hold that he is a grantee fthe State.
These charters have specified certain towns in