Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-02-20
STILL AFTER GENERAL ALGER.
A Two-Year-o1d Supreme Court Record
Brought Up Against Him-How Court
Roasted Him and His Diamond Match


A Two-Year-old Supreme Court Record
Brought Up Against Him-How Court
Roasted Him and His Diamond Match
Company Colleagues.
MINNEAPoLIs, Feb. 19-[Specidl. IA
decision of the Michigan Supreme Court
that will iniure the Alger Presidential boom
beyond repair was unearthed to-day. 1t
bears date November Is, 1889. The case is
Richardson versus Buhl, found in the North
western Reporter, volume 43, page 11O2. lt
was on an appeal from the Circuit Court of
Wayne county. D.. NJ Richardson sued
Christian H. Buhl and R. A. Alger to re-
cover money paid under a contract. There
was decree for plaintiff in the Circuit
Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The decree of the lower court was reversed.
General Alger was the principal owner OF
the Richardson Match Company, of Detroit,
when the Diamond match monopoly was
formed in 1880. Here is an extract from
Justice of the Supreme Court Champlin's
decision:
A Menace to the Public.
It also appears from the testimony of Gen
eral Alger that the organization of the Dla-
mond Match Company was, in measure,
due to his eXertions. There is no doubt
that all parties to this suit were active par
Elephants in perfecting that company, and
that the present dispute grows out of that
transaction and is the fruit OF the
scheme by which competition in the manu-
facture of matches was stified, opposition
to the business crushed, and the business OF
the country in that line engrossed by the
Diamond Match Company. Such vast com
bination is a menace to the public. 1t is no
answer TO say that this monopoly has, In
fact, reduced the price of friction matches.
The policy may have been necessary TO
crush competition. The TACT exists that 1t
rests in the discretion of this company at
any time to raise the price to an exorDltant
degree.
In speaking of the contract between
Alger and his partners in the Richardson
Match Company, the contract which led to
the suit, Chief Justice Sherwood, who gives
the principal opinion, says:
think no one can read the contract in
question and fail TO discover that consideTa-
tions of public policy are largely involved
The intention of the agreement is TO aid in
securing the objects sought to be obtained
in the formation and organization OF the
Diamond Match Company. This object is
openly and boldly owned. The testimony OF
General Alger settles ITS character beyond
question. Its articles provide for the aggre-
CATION of an enormous amount of capital,
sufficient to absorb all of that kind of busl-
ness in the United States and Canada, ana to
prevent competition in the sale of matches.
Monopoly a Serious Matter.
The sole object of the corporation is to
make money by having the power to raise
the price of the articles or diminish the
quantity TO be made and used at its pleasure
Thus both the supply and the price depend
upon a half dozen individuals, regardless of
the wants of the people. 1t is difficult to
conceive of monopoly which can affect
greater number of people, or one more eX-
tensive in its effect on the country, than
that of the Diamond Match Company. 1t
was to aid that company in carrying out its
object that the contract in this case was
made between these parties.
Monopoly in trade or in any kind OF busl
ness in this country is serious to our forms
of government. Its tendency is destructive
of free institutions and contrary to the
whole scope and spirit of the Federal Con-
stitution and is not allowed to exist under
express provision in several of our State
constitutions. Indeed, it is doubtful if free
government can long exist in a country
where such enormous amounts of money are
allowed to be accumulated, to be used at
discretion in controlling the property and
business of the country against the interest
of the public for the personal gain and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of a few individuals In
my Judgment, not only is the enterprise in
which the Diamond Match Company is en-
gagged an unlawful one, but the contract in
this case being made to further its objects
and purposes is void upon the ground that
it is against public policy. All the judges
concur in this policy.