The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1889-06-08
JUSTICE FULLER AND TRUSTS.

Just before its adjournment the Unite,
States Supreme Court rendered decision
(by Justice Fuller that will not be withou
salutary effect in protecting the peopl,
from the rapaclty of the numerous trust
which are rapidly monopolizing every kline
of business in this country.
The case was that OF Gibbs v. The Con
solidated Gus COmpany of Baltimore
Gibbs was the man who fixed up that trust
as he had arranged several trusts in othel
cities, being in fact, an expert in that line
The arrangements" uniting the two com
panies Of that city into a pool by which
they bound themselves to raise the price OF
gas to Sl75 per thousand, and maintain
that price and then divide the profits
being completed and In good working
order, Gibbs presented bill to the com
panes, levying $4,000 on each as his
compensation in creating the monopoly,
and compelling the public to pay tribute to
1t. One of the two companies refused to
pay the bill, because II had not agreed to
do So and Gibbs brought suit. The Su.
preme Court holds that the suit cannot be
maintained because the combination is
Illegal and, therefore, Gibbs cannot collect
a fee for bringing 1t about.
The decision was based primarily on the
ground that one of the parties to the COM
bine was prohibited by the statute of Ma
ryland from entering into any consolida.
ton, combination or contract with any 9TH
er gas company whatever" The Court
held that the statute was constitutional
and legal bar to entering into the agree
ment. "But no one who reads the opinion
of Chief Justice Fuller" says the N. Y.
Herald, "can doubt that, even apart from
such statute, the Court looked upon the
ombination as one to kill competition,
and therefore against public policy and
unlawful" Here Is an extract from the
opinion;
Innumerable cases, however, might be
cited to sustain the position that combina-
tons among those engaged in business
impressed with public, or quasi public
character which are manifestly prejudical
to the public interest can be upheld.
The law "cannot recognize as valid any
undertaking to do what fundamental doc
trine or legal rule directly forbids Nor
can 1t give effect to any agreement the
making whereof was an act violating law.
So that In short all stipulations to overturn
or In evasion Of what the law has estab-
lished; all promises interfering with the
workings of the machinery of government
In any of its departments or obstructing its
officers in its official acts or corrupting
them, all detrimental to the public order
and public good In such manner and de-
degree as the decisions Of the courts have
defined, all made TO promote what a statute
has declared to be wrong, are void"
1t Is also too well settled to admit of
doubt that corporation cannot disable
itself by contract from performing the
public duties which II has undertaken and
by agreement compel itself to make public
accommodation or convenience subseryient
to Its private interests.
Now that the question of the legality of
trusts and combines is looming up In the
courts all over the country, these views,
coming from the highest court of the ma.
ton, are as timely as they are wholesome.
They are the more welcome, too, In that
greed of these monopolies threatens to ex'
coed all bounds of decency and right, and
to eventually undermine our entire In,