The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-02
SUNDAY. APRIL 2. 1893
AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT Or
TRADE.

TRADE.
The Supreme Court OF Tennessee mas
recently decided O case in which II mas
laid down some very broad, general pro-
positions, which will play an Important
part in the business relations OF LIE
n they shall Re found sound and shall
come 10 be generally adopted as rules OF
conduct in life.
I. appears that "the Wholesale Grocers'
Association OF Nashville" had bound its
members not 10 buy from any importer
or manufacturer who sold 10 retail mer-
chants A retail merchant sued those
who constituted this association, alleging
that their agreement was On unlawful one
as being in restraint OF trade and com
n.erce and averring that 1t had caused
him injury and loss. 1t cannot be
doubted or denied that each one OF those
wholesale grocers. acting separately and
by himself. had a perfect right TO tell
an importer or manufacturer that he
would not deal with him II he sold to
a retail merchant, and II is difficult to
understand how an act which is lawful
when performed by one man can become
unlawful when performed by two or more
acting together in concert.
But the Supreme Court OF Tennessee
upheld the plaintiffs proposition that the
agreement was an unlawful one as being
in restraint OF trade and it held the
wholesale grocers liable. This is not
decision constituting an act OF the Ten
nessee Legislature. 1t is a declaration Of
what the Supreme Court OF Tennessee
understands to be the relations in which
men agree TO live in the social state,
and IL It's view Is sound II must be
adopted everywhere as the rule OF life.
The decision is one. therefore. which
should be examined very narrowly and
critically before II is either adopted or
rejected elsewhere.
The substance Of this agreement is that
the parties bind themselves to use every
moral influence that they can control TO
secure monopoly OF the particular bust
ness they are engaged in, for themselves.
II 1t be unlawful, in the sense Of wrong
ful for men 10 do this. IL is hard to see
upon what principle the rightfulness and
lawfulness Of the Farmers Alliances and
the labor unions can be maintained. The
members Of the Farmers Alliances and
OF the labor unions are all bound in
bonds that call on them TO use every
influence they can control, the farmers
TO secure special advantages TO the
farmers. and the laborers. special advan-
tages TO latorers The decision OF the
Tennessee court is one that expresses the
demands OF both these unions, yet It is
one which. logically. must plainly dissolve
both. Nay more. carried logically to its
ultimate results. IL must make all cen
federations OF individuals or capital i'm
possible. 1t must equally dissolve the
ordinary mercantile partnership. The
obligation which each member OF a mer-
camille partnership owes to his fellow
partners is exactly what the Nashville
grocers undertook towards each other.
IL is not written out in the articles Of
partnership. but each partner is under an
implied obligation TO his fellow partners
10 give no aid or assistance 10 their rivals
in business. and his obligation goes to
NAt ANhb III VI NdlllltB vi MN 10 use every
moral influence that he can control to
divert business from those rivals and
bring it to his own concern. The obliga-
ton In its implied state is just as con-
trolling as II could be made by express
sing II in words.
II then. this be law. cooperative asso-
Citations cannot exist and we are relegated
70 condition in which everything must
be accomplished by individual effort
which would mean that progress must
come TO standstill. And we should like
10 hear those metaphysicians who admit
this. justify the attacks which they make
on those combinations which they call
'trusts"
The true principle at the bottom of all
these discussions is this: Every citizen
has right 10 do as he pleases so long
as he infringes no right OF another citi-
zen. That is, he may do as he pleases il
his act Is inspired by a good motive.
lie may exercise any OF his individual
rights on any and all occasions. when
his motive and purpose are proper. even
IL exercising them should result I'm the
injury or destruction OF some one else
In such case. as his act is lawful act
ana his purpose and intention are sane
TONED by the law. the injury which re-
suits to another being only an incident
following In the train OF his course. and
not It's aim, is one or those unhappy re-
suits OF shifting social relations which the
law regrets. but cannot guard against.
Whatever one man may rlghtfully do.
two men may DO when acting together,
and. II two. then ten. one hundred. one
thousand. or any other number. The ma
ture OF the act is not changed by the
number participating in It.
But no man may exercise even the
most ordinary right OF citizenship IL his
purpose ana intention in the act 10 not
70 secure . eensat 70 himself. but 70 In