The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-05-07
CONCERNING TRUSTS.

A recent issue of the New York
Tribune contains an article entitled
The Death Kuell of Trusts" The
most interesting portion Of the ar
ticle in question is what purports to
be an interview between the writer
and a New York judge whose name
is not given. We reproduce the al
legged interview in full.
"Will Judge Barrett's decision stand ?"
l asked member OF the Supreme Court
living in one Of the northern cities OF the
State, himself Judge OF greatreputation.
Unquestionably, he said. There
are few judges to whom this is a novel
problem. We have all been considering
it for long while. What they call the
trust deed has been an object OF judi
cial curiosity for years. All OF US were
naturally anxious TO know under what
sort Of an agreement these gentlemen
were undertaking to accomplish ends
which We ali recognized as unlawful I'M
der the common law. In the evidence
before Judge Barrett the text OF one OF
these instruments was produced. This
particular deed has been the model OF
al that have been drawn later. Il re-
presents the ability OF one OF the most
astute lawyers OF this genera6on-John
E. Parsons. l can't say l think it does
Mr.. Parsons much credit, and for this
reason: 1t leaves the signatory. corpor-
atoms open to the killing blow which
Judge Barrett gives them when he says
that the acts complained OF must be re-
gardeQ as corporate acts, since they were
accomplished by corporate means, The
defendant claims, you know, that the
trust is not formed by the corporations,
but by the individual members OF them
as individuals II this be true, it follows
that they cannot be restrained or pun
ished under the law regulating corpor-
ations. This action is brought to dis
solve corporation for abusing a license.
If the abuses alleged were committed,
not by the corporation, but by individual
members OF it, of course you cannot pun
ish the corporation. Now, says the de-
fendant, we did not, as a corporation,
do these things at all. We Old
them as Individuals That's all very
well to say replies the court, but where
did you get the money by which you
acquired your property? Where did
you get the profits you did not contribute
to earn? All your corporate acts were
in obedience to the trust. Your conduct
gives the lie to your claims. This is
where Judge Barrett's decision IS parti-
cularfy strong"
"Why Go you feel so certain the Court
OF Appeals Will not take contrary view?"
Because there is no ground either in
the law or the facts upon which they can
take it. Judge Barrett has done nothing
novel or strange. He has not made any
New law He has simply applied TO
condition the rule of centuries. There
is one ground upon which he can be re-
Yersed, and but one, in my judgment
Ii the Court OF Appeals is satisfied that
under modern social arrangements
no danger arises to the people
from combinations OF this char
acter. it can overturn the decision
OF the trial court. 1t can say. The laws
and principles upon which the learned
Judge arrived at his conclusions were
made Tor another age than this, and to
meet the eXigencies OF a wholly different
social system. Then the people were
Ignorant, easily imposed upon, and un-
able to resist the aggressions of powerful
combinations. Now they are free, SOW
ereign. resourceful. They have no need
to fear monopolies The law as it stands
is played out. 1t must give way to the
needs OF commerce as it is at present
conducted If the Court OF Appeals
looks at monopolies such as the trust deed
provides for in this light, it can reverse
Judge Barrett with great ease. But do
not look for such doctrine"
''Do you look for the extinction OF
trusts as result of this decision,
judge
Eventually, yes OF course, it will
take time. Legal ingenuity will devise
new methods OF accomplishing the OBJ
jeets Judge Barrett so strongly con-
demns."
''Do you believe it possible TO draw up |
substitute for the present form OF the
trust deed that will be proof against the
objections raised to this one.'
The Judge reflected long before ne |