Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-18

together they have different station
houses NJ crossings when one would
answer for all; their time tables are 40
arranged as To cause Inconvenience
whenever passenger leaves their line
To pass upon another which il moi
working in harmony with them. and
they establish soliciting agencies which
are only made important by the rival.
~. In all these things the several
companies think they advance their
individual interest Ia the competition:
but In doing so they not ouly make
the service they render to the public
less valuable but also more extensive,
Some OF the evils Of unrestricted com.
petition have been generally recogniz
ed by those who have been most
earnest In demanding congressional
legislation, and il has been one featur.
OF the bills introduced TINT restraints
more or less considerable, should be
imposed.
1t Is also proper to add that, whether
the railrosd companies anticipate 1t or
not, no pooling arrangements, unless
tue aid ofthe law can be had for it,
enforcement, can possibly put an end
TO competition between them. The
arrangement may regulate COMPETE
ton but cannot stop It. The appor.
tionment OF business, as has been said,
VIII be made on a calculation of what
the respective roads would he likely
To obtain under free competitions; aud
every company, in view of the periodi-
cal REIMBURSEMENT Of perc. ntages, will
he Interested In showing that its facili-
Ties and is management naturally
bring To IT u larger proportion than 1t
now receives; and the rivalry for pub
lie favor will 90 ON as before, though
1t may be expected that some of the
features Of rivalry which, when II Is
hostile, are peculiarly injurious to the
public, WILDE eliminated by the agree
ment to work in harmony. Moreover
the several soliciting agents of the
roads will have n personal interest in
showing their value to their employers
by presenting good results from their
service in the employment; the perma.
nent value of each road, as well rs the
market value Of its stock, will depend
largely on the shares awarded to 1t in
the periodical establishments; all the
prejudices which concur In bringing
about first secret and then public de-
partures from common agreements
will only be repressed by the pooling,
not removed; and not only will
competition continue notwith-
standing the common agree
ment, but it will by force of the
circumstances be so far active and eff
cient In keeping rates within bounds
that one would hazard nothing in say
ing that, within the territory whose
business is naturally effected by the
competition of the trunk lines, the
period when rates can be controlled by
combinations and kept at figures lini.
ted only by the discretion or the greed
of the managers, is gone forever.
THE LEGALITY OF RAILROAD POOLS
But ii IL said that all contracts which
have for their object To restrain, com
petition are illegal at the common law
because they are in conflict with "A gen
eral principle of public policy. The
term Illegal is somewhat ambiguous
A contract may be illegal In the sense
that il is forbidden by law which Inn
.. poses some penalty for entering into It
or IT may be Illegal because. though
} not forbidden, il is considered to be oil
an injurious and demoralizing tenden'
CIV, and therefore the law will not favoi
It, but will refuse to lend its aid in en-,
forcement. If a contract Is only illegal
: in this last sense, parties are ut perfect
liberty to enter into 1t If they please,
but performance Of it's conditions
must be entirely voluntary. IL Is un'
der this head that pooling contracts
are supposed to come.
; 1t is familiar principle in the law
, that contracts In general restraint OF
! trade are void. Therefore If man
contracts with his rival in business
that for aJy agreed consideration he
will no longer pursue his customary
calling within the state In which III
resides, the promise is one he may
keep at pleasure or break with impun
ity. The reasons are that such con
tract If enforced would deprive thu
public of the benefits of competition
! and mt the same time impose restraints
going far beyond what would he need
ful for full protection to the party bar
I. gaining for them. But IL was always
! agreed that competition, In so far as !
operated injuriousiy to individuals
might with entire competency be INN
ted by contract; and in great variety
of cases it has been held that maj
may lawfully bargain to put an end L.
an Injurious competition in his btisi
ness in the locality where he carries i
on, or that he may bargain to proven
} the establishment In that locality OF
I competing business which he fear
NAV be injurious. 1t is only when III
! exacts terms that go beyond giving
! him protection that the law holds Iii
|, contract to he unreasonable, Injurious
to the public, and therefore illegal
: The reader unfamiliar with the Law
: reports will find many OF the cases re
D ferred to in the note; and II Will appeal
q on AN examination that In all OF then
$ the legality of bargaining TO limit com
$ petition, when it is kept within TN
3 bounds of reasonable protection, Il
= either assumed or expressly afiirm
a The principle upon which these case
: are decided is that by which pooling
: arrangements, 80 far rs concerns incl
0 locality must stand or fall. If the,
e are illegal. 1t Is because they establish
i unreasonable restraints upon competi
= tion i'm business; II they can be sup
d norted In law. 1t must be upon IN
!. ground that they only give 70 the par
u Ties concerned that reasonable protec
u ton against competition wnlen
e peedfuI to their prosperity. lawn
e this in mind II may he useiui 70 re'e
o To such judicial decisions as seem
y bear most directly upon TINS pecuua
le class of contracts.
l. n has already been said that pooiin
arrangements have been sustained y
It Great Britain. One OF the cases passe'
Ie upon was q pooling arrangement ot
n s,,aan stevedores: another WAS betweel