The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-02-20

| t.-..1ar 'fTlSIt NHHh ~ '
wbil. il does certainly affect most disas-
,,onslv many forms Of business that We are
anro Mr. Wright and the Virginia Legisla-
,rre have no intention to injure. II will not
40 10 denounce all trusts" The interven-
ton Of trustees has been one Of the most
poverfui aids to civilization hat the world
has known. Mr.. Wright must redrait his
bill. and make it apply to those trusts only
that are dangerous and OF evil portent' ana he
must exempt from its operation those when
are beneficial TO mankind.
His bill. as now framed. operates against
those combinations and agreements which
are in restraint of trado and injurious 10 the
people. We have already remarked tha' the
common law condemns all agreements tha'
are in restraint Of trade. There mas never
been a day in our own history, or IN the history
of our English ancestors, when a court would
have failed to pronounce void an agreement
in restraint Of trade. The difficulty III every
case is 10 determine whether the paItlcu'Hi
| agreement is one in restraint OF trace Onco
afIix that character 70 it and the courts VIII
certainly declare it void. Many agreements
which dull men most earnestly INSIST 10 %
in restraint Of trade. keen-sishted men
perceive to be beneficial to trade. Inc case
| lust decided by the English House OF Lords
that we have recently referred to. Is striking
illustration Of this. A number OF owners OF
steamships plying between Chinese ports and
Great Britain combined together TO get con
troll of the tea trade. They offered very low
rates 10 all shippers who would ship by their
steamers only: ana a rebate OF D per cent. OF
al freights at the end of a year If q shipper
would send all his freight during the
year by their steamers. The Mogul Steam
ship Company. which traded between emma
and Great Britain during the tea season.
when the service was profitable. but between
Australia and Great Britain at other seasons
when the Chinese service WAS not proii'aoie'
complained to the courts that the ccmDlna-
ton was in restraint Of trade and ought 10 Do
broken M. Now a superficial observer would
have declared this TO be 50, but the Lngil'h
Judges most properly said that it was not So.
The combination kent a line OF steam
ers going between China and England all
the year. and therefore gave trade the beneht
Of a regular and steady service. while the
Moeul Company was no more than q guerilla,
serving the public when it suited, and leaving
the public without service when 1t I'D not
suit them to furnish the service. Tins case
is sufficient TO show what nice questions arc
involved in determining whether a gwen
combination Is or is not in restraint OF trade.
Let it be determined that it is in restraint OF
trade. and the present law makes II void. II
il il not in restraint Of trade, then 1t should
be allowed TO tand.
Adding Mr.. Wright's words ito the injury
of the people Of the State gives no ground
for condemning an agreement between par
ties. Wherever a II merchant. by superior intel
licence. energy and thrift, drives his rival cut
of the business, he Injuries that rival. Wher-
ever a partnership, by superior intelligence
energy and thrift drives another partnership
out of the business, it injuries all the members
of that partnership. Yet Mr.. Wright would
not surely forbid either the individual or the
partnership to push his or rs business to the
point of securing control Of the business.
a word now In regard to trusts
Every~o of the combinations Of which
tie puolic has a vague and i'll defined dreac
under the name Of trusts must, in the
nature of things, be reierable to one OF the
three following heads. 1t must be either:
O) An agreement or combination between
two or more individuals heretofore acting
separately as individuals, thereafter actlnl
together in concert. or
ID An agreement OF combination between
two or more partnerships heretofore acting
separatelv as partnerships, thereafter act
ine together in concert as one much large
partnership, or
(c) An agreement OF combination between
two or more corporations heretofore actinl
' separately, thereafter acting together IN con
/ cert as one corporation.
u Now we say that every trust" when ana
j lived. must. in the nature of things. be one 0
T. the other of these three agreements. Yer.
} well.
D If an individual is engaged in a bushes
= which is innocent in its tendencies and favor
j ed by the law and common sense, how vii
I" that business become vicious in its tendencie
if h eassocistes five. ten, twenty or one hundre
70 more individuals with him to pursue and pus
! the business with their Joint efforts instead O
- by his single efforts only? The sole result
that we lave a partnership in place Of firm
consisting of several individuals. If also
partnership is engaged in Il business which
, innocent in its tendencies, and favored by til
law and common sense. how will that bus
ness become vicious in It's tendencies If tha
, partnership merges its business with anOthe
partnership. or with ten or twenty other part
nerships, and thereafter pushes the bushes
, by the united efforts of all the partners, il
stead Of as before. by the efforts of the men
bers of the first partnership only! The sol
result is that we have "a larger instead Of
smaller partnership. We think this dispose
. of heads (a) and o.. Head Co remains to
!, treated.
Corporations are creatures of the State, an
have no rights except such as the State col
fers upon them. They have no power to n
tain those even conferred upon them by I'll
State, except as those rights may be protec
ed by our written constitutions. They al
!, therefore fair game for Mr.. Wright. But Ii
question comes back, is il wise that the Legi
lature should cramp corporate action ? III
operations of organized capital, workin
- through corporations, have done more K