New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-24

broadly taken in American legislation
that while public policy is promoted by
giving protection to combined capital or
enterprise. it is not just or judicious to
bes,ow upon one man or set of men any
exclusive right to perform any act which
any other man or men nay choose also to
perform. There is monopoly granted
man of his own invention for term of
years. but this does not inpugn the prin-
ciple of leaving to all men the right to
incorporate their capital or industry for
any purpose they may choose.
The exclusive right of any man to do
particular public act which others may do
as well is in fact the bestowal of q right
of taxation to that extent. The incorpo-
ration of a gas company is a measure OF
public policy, because the enterprise Of
making and supplying gas is too large to
be left to the energy, resources or life
of one man. There is no reason, how
ever that society should consent to de-
prive all others Of exercising the same
right of manufacture and Incorporation,
provided that it offers inducements to
do so. 1t is so with the incorporation Of
railroads, steamship lines, and other pub
lie enterprises, in which society agrees to
exempt the stockholders from the ordinary
obligations of partners. 1t is, in our
opinion, to this extent only that the power
of incorporation should go to enrich and
empower individuals. To impose exclusive
taxation upon their fellow citizens savors
too much of the day when king might
give 10 a mistress or favorite the ex-
elusive revenues to be derived from the
popular consumption of salt or pepper to
suit republican ideas.
We have abstained from entering upon
the discussion of the question whether
the Legislature has the right to repeal a
monopoly of the right to sell chances in a
fund to be drawn for. That such grant
of exclusive right is unwise is known by
the practice of almost every American
State in the Union. When we consider
that any monopoly to one or more citizens
is an unjust preference over all other citi-
zens, Republican objection becomes ap-
parent. When there is superadded the
fact that the State itself takes an interest
in the monopoly, it tends somewhat to
equalization, because the State distributes
it's interest in the monopoly among all the
citizens This does not, however, expiate
the wrong of monopoly, nor make the
contributions of the monopolists equal to
those of other citizens. We are Of opin-
ion, therefore, that the original grant of
an exclusive right to deal in tickets Of
chance is as wrong as to have given
monopoly to sell shoes.
Upon the question of morality in this
grant, and good faith imposed in main
tanning it, we have little to say. If the
State has bound itself by any legal con-
tract, and individual interests have vested
Hereunder, the State can not violate its
contract, however imprudcnt. 1t may
have intrusted the present contrac: to in
competent or vicious men, but it must be
bound by their acts, just as if they had
been virtuous agents. The objection that
the grant of such an exclusive franchise is
void, because contrary to good morals, is
undoubtedly good, because such a con-
tract would have been void ob initio.
Here the question becomes quite deli
cate. Of course, if lottery gambling
be immoral, the State must be as re-
sponsibie as if it should receive an
interest in the receipts of any other
immoral enterprise. This question
is also peculiar because it depends on the
standard of morals set up by different
communities. Among people who regard
all games of chance as immoral, ticket
which subjected the holder to an undue
or unequal return for an investment
would be immoral. With such commune
ties even usury is immoral. With other
communities in which the standard of
morality, or even religion, is more in
dulgent, the sale of such chance would
not be tainted with immortality. We
mign; o;en suppose that when the people
Of State speaking through their Legis-
lature, conceded any franchise or even
took q part Of the proceeds, the
standard Of good morals in such
State can not condemn the concession
as immoral When We add that in the
Christian churches the principle of lot
terry gambling is even turned to profit, it
would be difficult to pronounce the act
contrary to good morals without an i'm
piled reproach upon the institutions of
religion whose teachings are supposed to
fix the standard of social morality.
The practice Of incorporation is good.
The grant of a franchise in monopoly is
wrong, and the question of deciding
whether the grant of privilege is in con-
travention Of good morals must depend
upon the ethical code of any State or IA
ton that grants it.
OF one thing we are certain-that no
State should ever grant a franchise with
out reservation of the power to alter,
amend or repeal it; due compensation
to be made of course, for any vested
property interests which may have arisen
under the grant
THE SHALLERHORN FAMILY WANT
MULES.