The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-04

Of the thing that every one chartered
will do all in its power TO become master
OF its line OF business
The Journals whole argument Is ad-
dressed 10 the case of an agreement be-
tween the persons becoming the stock
holders of a corporation when the o'c-
trine of trusts las n, relation 10 them al
all. but only to such agreements as inc
corporation may errer irto with o'her
cornorations or individuals after 1t Is
formed The purposes or agreements OF
the parties forming the corporation are
OF no consequence. II the law actually
forms the corporation. All those purposes
and agreements are merged In the char
ter. and the only question after that Is
whether the corporation confines itself
TO what the charter authorizes II 10 DO.
All that the Journal has quoted from the
decisions Of the courts has reference TO
agreements between separate corpora
lions. and not to agreements that the
stockholders make amongst themselves
when forming their company.
The Journal says In this connections:
'The common law, equally with the spe-
cifc legislation OF most of the States, re-
CARDS a corporation formed for the ex-
press purpose OF creating and maintaining
a commercial monopoly as a combination
in unlawful restraint Of trade"
We are compelled to dissent absolutely
and entirely from this. Under the common
law a corporation could only come into
existence through the act of the law It.
self. and. If the law authorized a corpora
ton which avowed as its purpose and In
tention TO create and maintain COM
mercial monopoly. then the law could not
possibly look with an unfriendly eye
upon an institution with such a purpose.
since it had set 1t up and had authorized
its purpose. The Journal would be right
If 1t said that the common law looked
with an unfTiendly eye rpon an agree
ment between two corporations that aim
ed at a commercial monopoly, but u Is
wholly wrong in saying that the common
law looked with an unfrienGly eye upon
"a
aimed at securing monopoly by It's
own agencies and without combination
with other corporations or individuals.
It is the inherent right Of every indvid-
ual to make his business as prosperous
as possible. even TO the extent OF secur-
ing for himself what amounts to a monop-
oily of that business. II he does 1t by his
own intelligence. energy. thrift, and enter
prise. unaided by legislation like the
tariff laws. When the law has chartered
a corporation and given it authority 10
do certain things. 1t is Just as much the
inherent right OF that corporation also
to make its business as prosperous as
possible. even TO the extent of securing
a monopoly Of that business. as 1t is OF
any great dry goods merchant in New
York 10 try to control any line OF goods.
If it confines itself to the power conferred
upon it by its charter.
Whether the Journal Of Commerce I'M
derstands It, or whether 1t does not. its
argument is, in effect. an attack upon
the principle Of incorporated companies.
II is the same thing as 10 say that as IN
corporated companies may become dan
gerously rich, therefore. we should cease
Incorporating companies. The Times can
not assent to the doctrine. The Times
believes that the great advances OF mod
ern life are due TO the limited liabilities
men contract in incorporated companies,
and that the changes feared from them
are imaginary and controlled by the
shifting conditions. of business. The case
is one for hands on" with the hindmost
one left to the tender mercies of whoever
catches him.