The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-02-14

formal bv two or more acting together IN
concert and not upon the nature Of the act
itself.
On the 4th inst. Tar TrMrs discussed the
supposed distinction involved in this PROPOSE
ton and showed that there was nothing u
our laws. or in the spirit or essence OF our III
stitutions. that forbids two or more acting
together in concert 10 perform any act when
would be innocent when performed by one
that the only combinations Of persons when
the theory Of our institutions condemns are
combinations which aim at doing some other
persons a wantOn AID malicious injury. bu'
that combinations which aim only at BENEFIT
ing the persons confedersted together are
favored by the law. even if they do result IN
destroying the business Of some one.
And without combining the distinctions be-
tween innocent and vicious combinations to
this line Of demarcation, none Of the most
ordinary transactions Of life could be maln-
tanned. Not even the ordinary mercantile
partnership could exist. for what IS that part
nership but an association of individuals
striving together in concert 10 get control Oh
oil Of a particular business. even If getting
that control does result in destroying another
partnership engaged in the same branch OF
business: ana what is the most elaborate trust
but a wider and more enlarged part
nership? We repeat then, that the
spirit Of our institutions and Of the
institutions Of all civilized governments favor
combinations Of individuals which aim only
at benehting the individuals contederateu
together and condemns no combinations put
those which aim at inficting q wanton ana
malicious injury on other parties. With ms
distinction pointed out between combinations
Of persons that are innocent, and combination
that are vicious. we proceed to remark upon
the particular provisions Of Mr.. Saunders Dill
We cannot believe that Mr.. Saunders care
fully studied the language that he has used,
and we cannot believe that he really intends
to do what his language fixes on him an IN
tentiOn 10 do. For instance. no forbids any
individual 20 enter into IN agreement with
another Individual TO regulate or fix the
price Of any article of merchandise or COM
modify" Now. We feel sure that Mr.. Saun-
ders does not mean this. for this would
prevent two members Of a mercantile
firm fixing the price at which their
goods shall be sold. and thus all business
would at once be blocked. We feel sure Mr..
Saunders did not mean this. but he has said
it ell the same. Not only so. but he says that
in such a case the two partners shall be
deemed and ~adjudged guilty OF q conspiracy
10 defraudw
But whilst we are unwilling to believe that
Mr.. Saunders really meant to forbid partners
putting a value upon their own stock, what
are we 10 think Of the next proposition OF his
bill? He next forbids one individual to agree
with another individual that they together
will establish a monopoly and break down
competition in tie production Of or sale OF
any article of bv selling such arti-
Gle nj a small cost or at less than actual cost.
Now we believe that Mr.. Saunders means
here Just what his language imparts. We be-
lieve he means TO forbid any two or more
persons acting in concert to attempt to con-
troll the production or sale of any article by
selling it at a small profit. or at cost, or at
less than cost. But tho bill forbids all per-
sons to enter into such an agreement. and, L
forbids oil. it of course forbids partners to
come 10 any such resolution in respect TO
their own business.
What will mercantile partnerships say
when they are told that they themselves
are not hereafter to fix the price at which
they will sell their WI goods. but that Mr..
Saunders Act Of Assembly will fix 1t for them;
His next provision is equally as elastic. He
forbids one individual 10 agree with another
TO put down or reduce the price of the articles
in which they desl for the purpose Of sitting
and breaking down competition IN that article.
THIS also applies TO a partnership. Now every
partnership buys as cheaply as it can and
tries 10 undersell its rival. II the natural re-
suit OF this is not to break down and stile
the competition of that rival. it IS hard 10 say
what the natural result is. sYet Mr. Saunders
bill forbids this.
We know very well that Mr.. Saunders did
not have mercantile partnerships in his mind
when he was drawing his bill. but he has in
cluded them. and we say now that he can't
re-draft his bill and leave them out. because.
the supposed evil that he is aiming at Is moth
ing but a broad manifestation Of the princi-
pies Of partnership, and whatever applies to
what he thinks to be an evil will be found on
analysis to be a blow aimed at the business Of
partnerships.