The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-12-16
THE TENDENCY OF MODERN La"
KFSPfCTIN. CONVERSATIONS.

principles Of law much more liberal 10
the trust idea than the tendency OF the
American courts there is far less popular
discomfort with trusts than in this coun-
try. 4 great controversy arose in the
English courts some ten years back be-
tween contending ship owners, for the
control OF the Chinese tea trade, which
was several years I'm process Of settle
rnent It was finally decided by the
House Of Lords. and 1t finally establishes
the principle OF law that is 10 govern
there In such matters. The point deter
mined is that for an agreement between
parties TO become one which public au-
thority shall condemn. the parties TO the
agreement must be inspired by some ma
ncious or unworthy purpose. II IS hot
enough that one set Of persons acting
together in concert should aim at the
serious injury or destruction OF
another person or set Of persons.
That may be the perfectly ie-
gdtimatc purpose OF Il competition IN
business. as when one rival concern seeks
TO drive the other out of the field, that
the first may thereby become that much
the stronger. TO make the confedera-
ton aiming at that purpose one TO be
condemned. the parties acting together
must be inspired by a malicious purpose
to injure the other, from a mischievous
love OF evil. If they are simply en-
deavoring TO improve their own situation,
their joint action is not censurable. simply
| because they seek to Gust their rivals
| in reaching their own goal. Lord JUS
tice Fry, in delivering judgment in the
| case, said:
Il know of no limits 10 the night OF
| competition In the defendants. ! mean
no limits in law. l am not speaking OF
| good morals or good manners. To draw
a line between fair and unfair compe-
] titiOn, between what is reasonable and
| unreasonable, passes the power OF the
courts. | find 1T impossible myself TO
! acquiesce IN the view that the English
| law places any such restrictions on the
| combination OF capital as would be in
volved in the recognition Of such a dis
| til elton II so. che rich capitalist may
| innocently carry competition to length
| which would become unlawful In the case
| of a syndicate with a joint capital no
larger than his own"
These are the accepted doctrines in
| England, and. as we have remarked. We
hear far less complaint of trusts there
than we hear in this country. II can
! not be said that the American courts re-
| pudiate the English doctrine, which IS the
dictate Of common sense, but there IS as
yet nothing like unanimity in their rul-
ings in regard to The matter with a
strong leaning against the English view,
though right reason may yet bring them
around to general acceptance Of II.
The tendency Of the American courts
in the matter is well Illustrated by what
was recently said by Judge Finch, OF
the New York Court Of Appeals, in de-
lvering the opinion of that court in one
of the sugar rehneries cases that came
before It. He said:
1T is not sufficient answer to say
! that similar results may be lawfully ac-
| cOmphshed; that an individual having
| the necessary wealth might nave bought
! all these rc1neries. manned them with
| his own chosen agents, and manged them
| as a group at his sovereign viii; for ii
| Is tHlHE lDl me Slhlt 10 IfSptNL Aut
| rights of ownership, and protect them
| out of regard 10 the business freedom of
| the citizen, and quite another thing 10
| add to that possibility a further extern
sion of these consequences by creating
| artificial persons 10 aid In procuring such
| ag,regatiOns."
This is undoubtedly, in certain way,
a ncgation of the doctrine of the English
| u, trlr no
fore 1t a case in which corporation had
bought up a number of renneries. A
| corporation can, of course do no more
| than what it is permitted TO do by its
] charter. and the only real question before
| the New York court was whether the
! charter OF that particular corporation in
| fact permitted it to acquire these differ
! ent renneres. 1t may be that the New
| York court, in a case IN which natural
| persons had associated themselves to-
gether to accomplish some purpose, would
| adopt the English doctrine, though II
! must be admitted that its leaning seems
| to be in the other direction. The point
most strongly suggested by the New York
| case is whether or not there should be
less latitude in the charterng of cor
| porations?
For our own part. we are on the side OF
great freedom and latitude in the forma-
| ton Of corporations. We have not the
slightest doubt that modern progress is
largely due 10 corporations. in which
| men risk no more OF their means than
what they subscribe 10 the enterprise.
| Nor have We any fear from that sort Of
monopoly and combination that comes
from individual enterprise. 1t is the mo
nopoIies created by law. like those under
the tariff laws. that hurt the people.
| Rut those that arise under free competi-
| ton will always be restrained by com
petiuon. Are we to say. upon the whole.
that the public has been hurt by the
| Standard oil Company? II has reduced
the Kerosene oil that everybody In the
county burns from 81 80 a gallon to 10
cents a gallon. Can II be said that the
| American Tobacco Company has, on the
| whole, hurt the producers and consumers
| of tobacco? 1t mas undoubtedly hurt
the middlemen. but In bringing the pro-
Queer and consumer closer to each other
and extending he market, IL must have
| tended towards reducing the price 10 the
| consumer and raising IL 10 the DrOQuCer.