The advocate., 1890-01-09

them as part owners in corporations, ana
the government has no business whatever
10 restrain Northumberland liberty "a owns
Ing and controlling as many works aB thqy
please and can. This reasoning Ogerlooka
The fact that the corporation Is 4 croatuga
oflaw Ithas not the natural rights oftbs
individuals composing It, They are iao
10 do business each man for himself, but
when they ask the state 10 give them larger
powers, perpetuity and immensely I'M
creased facilities RECONCILIATION through
d corporate charter or legal organizations
ofany kind, they Voluntarily become SUBJ
iect TO one restriction, namely that Eholr
powers shall be used In harmony with, and
not In hostility to, the public Interests,
They havea right as individuals doing
business each for himself 10 consider their
private advantage But they have not q
right as corporation endowed by the pe0-
pie with enormously increased powers, tO
use those powers against the interest and
welfare Of the people. The preoumptioa
Of the law is that corporations which CONF
blne to control the manufacture or sale bg
particular product do 80 for the purpose
Of getting for TIA higher price than could
otherwise be obtained But II Is fortho
public interest that the price Of every pro-
ductshould be regulated by free compet.
tlon between the American producers. II
is contrary to the public welfare that men
In one branch Of production or another
should be enabled to seize unnaln.
raj aud exorbltant returns for theircapitai
and their skill, or TO tax the public unTea-
sonably forthe services they render When
any individual does that thing In the exor
else Of his natural right the govemmeh,
does not interfere, because the harm whicl
can be done by one person, with his lin,
tied powers and capital, is presumedt0 70 bs
less than the harm which might fesulI
from restricting individual freedom. Dui
when a corporation or combination OF ln
dividuals, employing the law az a weapos
against society, uses its legal powers d
gainst the welfare Of the public, the gov
ernment has reason to interfere. ltl
constantly argued that this or that com,
binatlon deserves confederation becaua,
1t has not undulY enhanced prlcea, 0f Nal
even reduced them. But tho deciaiOr, 9
the Michigan supreme court Ia fogNiai.
the Dimaond Match company IL speftinbt,
here, forit held the corporation an uolaN
ful conspiracy for the reasons here stated
"All the parties were active partlclpnhf
in periecdng the combination known *
the Diamond Match Co., and the pr60
ent dispute is the fruit Of fthls scheme. bY
which all competition In the mauufactnrr
Of matches WAS TO be stiiled, and the enl'l,
business Of the country In this line 6n
crossed by that company. Such ynsl
combination as this IL menace so thf
public. II is no answer 10 say that thil
monopoly has, In fact, reduced the price o
matches, for that policy may have been
necessary to crush competition, TheSncD
exists that II restsin the discretion Of Ia
company at any time to raise prices TO ob
exorbltant figure"
This is precisely in harmony with she
New York decision regarding the sugar
trust, and with the recent decision IN Illk
nois regarding the Chicago gas trust 'r
latter, 1t is argued, has given the peoi
betterand cheaper gas. Butthc law, asiaa'