The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-02-04
THE aSr,.MoSopoLY BILLS.

duced by Mr.. Wrsn'' ~"
Saunders. Mr.. Wrights phi Is "heu ca
c,usivelv at the American Tobacco company
49,. royoyobly reported by the Committee
ID. Currency and Commerce. where
~ ur Saunders saw Mr. Wright and went
Ia, oro better by q bill offered as a substi-
,r,a for Mr.. Wrights. Both are referred again
% tbe same committee, whore. 1t Is to DO
hoped. each will die and be deposited in its
appropriate grave. Lest, however, some
ueryerseness of the human intellect should
acain bring these measures forward Tor
serious consideration we shall examine them
in detail to show their monstrous character.
With all Difference we submit that MIR.
Saunders bill is founded on a total miscon-
ception Of the principles which underlie all
fair and equal trade and commerce. 1t pro-
vides briefly that if any two or moro persons
agree together to regulate or fix the price OF
any article Of merchandise or commodity. or
enter into any pool. agreement, contract,com-
bination or confederation TO establish q mo-
nopoly and to break Town competition IN the
production OLA sale of any commodity OF con-
sumption or article Of m by seiilng
such article or commodity at a small prohI'
or at actual cost. or at less than cost, or Il
they reduce the price of articles or
ties in which they deal for the purpose OK
sitting and breaking down competition, they
shall be guilty OF Il serious crime and pun
ished, if natural persons. by a fine Of not more
than $500. with imprisonment in jail for not
moro than a year; if corporation BY q inc
of not Tess than 1 per. cent. on its capital stock
We submit that this bill lays the axe at the
root of all fair and equal trade and commerce,
and would absolutely annihilate both. To
know what ought 20 be it is very well 70
know what is, and we unhesitatingly Affirm
that there is nothing in the spirit OF essence
OF the laws under which we or our foreisthers
have lived that gives the slightest countenance
TO the principles OF this bill. Let us see about
this.
IfAh has q hat store on Broad street Is has
a perfect right to open another hat store by
his side. TO sell TO As customers cheaper than
A sells. and. finally, to close A up IN business
if he is the thriftier and more intelligent mer-
chant of the two. The public says to A:
Your case is q very hard one. but we can't in
t%erfere. 1t is one of those inevitable cases where
the stronger survives and the weaker p~erishes.
II you can't take care of yourself all We can
do is 70 take care Of you In the almshouse.
Now. if this is an innocent act when per
formed by b it is difficult TO perceive how It
can become a pernicious act simply by reason
of it's being performed 10y b and five associ-
ates acting in concert. The nature Of the
act remains the same. never mind how many
persons are c0nfederated together Ia perform
ing il, and an act innocent III itself can never
become pernic;ous in lis nature because 1t IS
performed by two acting together instead Of
by one acting alone. Stick a pin right here.
Mr.. Saunders, because this is the spot upon
which the whole discussion has got to rest
and we defy you or any other political econo-
mist to controvert the proposition.
Then, if it is one Of the legitimate incidents
Of trade for i to undeTsell A and break him
down, it is also perfectly legitimate for b TO
get six. ten, a hundred associates to combine
with him in his endeavor to undersell A and
Get possession Of his business. Let A do the
same.
The popular mind is always befogged upon
this subject. There is a radical distlnc-
ton between acts of this character. one class
of which is vicious and the other class Of
which innocent; and, if Mr.. Saunders will
confne his act to the vicious class no one
will have u word TO say against it.
b has a perfect right to open his hat store
next to AS, to undersell him and get posses
sion Of As trade. If his object be bona fide TO
advance his own interests simply. But If b
is not inspired by a desire to improve his own
trade, if his real object be simply a malicious
desire to destroy A, then his act is outside the
domain of trade and III and becomes
one of simple wantonness. Whilst Is has the
perfect right to undersel 4, and thereby
ruin him. he has no right to pass by As yard
and shoot his pet dog. Therein lies the dis
t~inction between the fair trader and the boy
cotter.
If Mr.. Saunders will make his bill pro-
vide that such combinations aimed merely at
iniuring some one shall be unlawful. all will
applaud it. When he makes it take in the
legitimate competitions of trade all must con-
denim it.
The distinction pointed out here has been
very recently thoroughly discussed and APP
proved Of by all the judges Of England in a
| case Just decided by the House of Lords. A
number Of s%hip-owners combined together for
the purpose of controlling the tea trade with
certain Chinese ports. For this purpose they
offered special low rates to local shippers in
order TO undersell the rival traders, and.
moreover, offered a special rebate Of 5 per
cent. TO shippers and to agents who would
deal exclusively with vessels belonging to the
Association. on the terms that the rebate for
the whole years shipping was TO be for
feited by any breach of this condi-
ton. The Mogul Steamship Company. a ri
val trader outside the Association, complained
of this action as a wrongful interference with
the general freedom of trade. and the cues
ton to be determined was whether the act
was one in its nature injurious 10 free and
fair trade. All the judges of England said
that it was not. and upon the ground pointed
out that the aim of the Association was their
own ACKNOWLEDGMENT and not the other
party's destruction. This case can be seen
in our law library in its first stages. in .Mogul
S. s.. Co. w. McGreggor, L. r., 10 q. b.. DIV.
476. which contains III the facts.