The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1889-11-23

to be that the affairs and business of
the association or combination should
he so managed and carried on as 10
promote the profit aud gain nt the
associates. The board, indeed, was
expressly authorized to promote the
interests of the parties in all suitable IA
well as lawful ways, and to provide for
all details not specifically mentioned.
That clearly c0mprehends the power To
prescribe and regulate the selling
prices of the articles to be produced,
and when the effect of the organization
is to secure the control, or the substan-
iial control, of this product and of its
sale, as that has been done, it is no
more than just to infer that the control
is TO be used to avoid competition AMI
enhance prices, aud in that manner, rs
the ordinary expedicut for that end, q,
promote the interests and add 10 the
profits of the associates.
"ln this case il was II leading object 10
| combine together the different corpora
tions and individuals engaged in the
business, not only jn and about the city
| of New York, but throughout the
country and to secure that control by n
| substantial organization for an indefi g
period OF time. This was not 20 be
dnme, and was not. in fact, done for an
idle purpose. or merely to furnish the
means of protection against unlawful
combinations, or for other more eco.
nomical object, but il was manifcstly To
place this business within the control
and subject To the dictaiiOn OF this assO-
citation aud of the board selected for
the government of its affairs. And
after putting forth the efforts necessary
to secure that end II would not only lie
idle but absurd 20 indulge i'll the sup
position that il was not intended 10
WELD the authority in this manner
secured for the pecuniary benefit OF the
associates. And the direct and usual
way in which that is accomplished Is
by the advancement of prices Of TIE
commodities manufactured and sold III
the course of the business whose c0ntrDI
may in this way be secured. When
the opportunity to do that is provided
human selfishness is sure 10 turn ii TO q
profitable account.
ga jury certainly would be fully JUS
titled i'll concluding from the agree
ment and the other facts in evidence in
the case that the governing object OF
the association was to promote its in
terests and advance the prosperity OF
the associates by limiting the supply
when that could properly be done and
advancing the prices of the products
produced by the companies. To con.
clude otherwise would be to violate al
the observations ana experiences OF
practical life. This is controlling
feature i'll this cOniroS cray. And that
it was intended to be secured by the
organization provided for and which
actually took place, is reasonably tree
from doubt, and where that appears. 10
be the fact, the agreement, asst ciatiOn
combination or arrangement, or What
ever else it may be called, having fOI
Its object the removal of competition
and the advancement of prices of nee
essaries of life, is subject to the con.
demnation of the law, by which it j!
denounced as criminal enterprise"
Judge Daniels quotes the provisiSnl
OF the statute making it misdsmeaf1al
for two or more persOns to commit ali,
act injurious TO trade or commerce.
and cites several cases i'll which 1t a
held that combinations and associa
tIons of kind with the sugar trus
. violated the provisions of this statute
These cases, he says, are direct author
, tiles against the legality of the associa
ton TO which the defendant was made
party. The only difference between
,hem and the one under consideration
was that in them the agreement eX
pressed what in this case was left to b,
plainly inferred, namely, an Intention
TO regulate prices and i'll that manne
promote the Interests Of the associates
In all these cases a reservation of tht
power to control the prices OF necessar!
products, whether by expressed agree
ment or fair Implication, had been CON
demned as unlawful.
, The cases cited and relied upon b,
the lawyers for the company in supper
, of their appeal, Judge Daniels finds
are not applicable to the case unde
consideration, as they are entirely dis
, tinguishable from it in principle.
/ The opinion continues:
"This controN ersy is within the an
I thOrity and principles OF the other adiu
/ dicatiOns which have been mentioned
. so distinctly and entirely as to render
} only necessary 10 dPp' nd upon ant
? follow them tor its disposition. a
t the facts have been deN rred, the assO
/ citation or combination III , which th
Y defendant has in this narner entered
was created for an unla wful object
/ And it has b, making Itself party t.
that ASSOCIATION renounced and aban
@ doned its own duties tor the transaction
and management of its business ALT
placed its interests and affairs unde
f the dictatiOu and control of Il boart
/ which legally should have no powe
/ over it, and rendered itself liable I,
v the Judgment which has been recovere,
] in this action, and the possibility tha
other business enterprises in the sam
v pursuit may be set on foot to counter
T. act the effect of this combination vii
: not relieve the defendant from this re
i suit. That, in view of the large capita
e and extended combination already sc
a cured, is very remote probability
o For other manufacturers brought j
) competition with this combinatio
could easily be driven from the field {
trade by it and its paramount contrC
still maintained and perpetuated. An
the probability that its power would b
used in this manner is so decided
Q fortified by experience that capitt
would be reluctantly placed at the ris
of loss by other persons with SO fol
!, midable competitor to be encour
tered. But if it should be otherwis
the law will not tolerate or excuse th
combination; TOR the interposition {
third persons in no way connecte
with il to couneract its effects is II
excuse or justification for the wrun
e this combination has in this mannt
: committed. a wrongdoer is nevt
Q excused Tor the consequences OF h
@ wrong for the reason that other partit
:. not acting under his direction {
e authority may interpose and III
IL measure defeat the consequences of tt
wrong. Evidence was gwen upon Il
g trial tending TO prove that the properl
,t previously used by the defendant in i
h business was intended to be taken as
y public park by the authorities OF Il
city and thereby TO excuse the cessatiO
10 of business, and that proceedings f;
u that object had been instituted. b
= while those may be the facts it is ST
q to be inferred from the other eViden'
Is upon the trial that its business was n
$ discontinued by reason of the expect
D ton that the property would be appr'
y priated by tie city tor this object, b
% that it was done under the power
le this combination to discontinue its pr
l. ductive -se, and in that manner dimi
p ish the manufacture of refined sugs
ii which il had previously carried on,
$. the extent OF from 275, 200 to 5000
v pounds of sugar day. Aud this we
Is is cOnfiI med by the fact that ii w
D. olI,waI IN Dariiciuotn in the two m