St. Paul daily globe., 1893-05-23
WHAT WILL COURTS DOT

The courts which have appointed re-
ceivers for the trusts have nice prob
lem on their hands for solution. When
receiver is appointed he becomes an
officer of the court. The property is in
the custody of the court. 1t is managed
under its direction. Where large in
terests are involved and would be sacri-
feed by winding up the affairs OF the
concern. stopping its productivity, sell
ing the property and paving off the
debts, it is customary for the receivers
to continue the business under the di-
rection of the court. The court then
becomes the manager Of the business.
the responsible head.
The cordage trust is in the hands OF
receivers and in the custody Of the
court. The whisky tt uSt bids fair to be
there soon. These organizations were
formed in defiance of both the common
and the statute law. The vital prln-
ciple is the restraint and control of the
trade in which they are engaged. NO
court can tolerate or permit such meth
DDS. 1t cannot recognize as valid any
contracts that may have been made. 1t
pronounces them void in their incep-
ton. Such being the case. will the
court permit the receivers to continue
the business of the trust? How can it
do what it declares an illegal act if done
by others? The sales of plants made
to the trust were made in violation Of
the common law, because the object
was to restrain trade and control prices.
Will the courts recognize any rights of
property in the trust and passed to its
receivers, dependent on such sales?
The whisky trust now offers another
puzzle. Five distilleries had become
the property of that trust, their former
owners remaining as managers. On
these and others of its acquired prop
critics the trust issued its certificates.
which have been sold on the market
and are held by investors and specu-
latorS, mostly the latter. The stock
certificates represent the properties,
Five Of the former owners and present
managers of these plants now, under
some pretense of non-payment Of rent,
withdraw from the trust; that is, they
retake possession as owners of their
properties and defy the trust. Some
very nice questions come in here for
the consideration of the courts and the
holders of whisky stocks. Can the
trust maintain ejectment to recover
possession of such properties? If there
were no question of leases and for
feiture for non-payment, but if the
managers" had simply taken posses
sion as owners, could the trust maintain
the action? If the managers" should
make answer that the original lease or
sale was simply cover for the more
secure formation of combination hav-
ing for its objects the control Of products
and prices, to stitie competition and
create a monopoly, and that fact should
be either admitted or established, would
the court not wash its hands of the mat
ter and leave the parties where they had
placed themselves? And if the courts
did this, what would be the value of the
whisky stock certificates? WHAT redress
could courts give the holders of them?
Could they give validity to stocks issued
on contracts of sale or lease which they
would not enforce? And why should
they? Did not the purchasers OF the
stocks buy with full knowledge of the
illegal business they represented? Ii
the courts apply to the trusts in such
cases the law they apply to individuals
in like cases, til ey will do more to cut
out this modern commercial excrescence
than will all the antitrust laws congress
or the legislatures can put into the stat