The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-19


and never will feel themselves bound. TO
leave competition open to others, " they
could shut 81 out. and they never vet
considered. and never Will consider.
! whether their business ntcrfcrcs with or
/ obstructs the business OF rival or
whether IL does not Cprcferring. indeed.
tina. IL should: and their hope Is that
| their enterprise VIII result In real injury
TO those who compete with thom. II.
therefore. the Journal OF Commerce has
| furnished the touchstone by which
trust" agreements arc to be tested. as
soon as its touchstone is applied to the
ordinary mercantile partnership. that old
innocent. and most useful agency OF
| business will be found to be one of those
noxious agreements that have been
branded as trusts"
| This universal principle manifests IT.
| self in the business OF the individual
as well as IN that Of the partnership. A.
r. Stewart spent his life in endeavoring
10 secure q practical monopoly OF the
wholesale dry-soods trade. and he I'M
Goubtedly made immense strides towards
accomplishing his object. If he had
! lived twenty years longer. he would very
probably have made very much further
| advances. Did 4. T. Sewart live the'
life of a violator Of law and sound
principle because lie worked with an eye
single TO monopolizing the dry-goods
business in this country?
Clanin & co. became very formidable
| rivals Of 4. r. Stewart. If it was right
for Stewart to pursue his business upon
the lines followed by him would 1t
have been wrong for him and Clahin
TO unite their businesses and work to-
gether upon the same lines? The Journal
Of Commerce. and. indeed, all who argue
that side of the case make the question
whether an agreement is wrongful turn
upon the question or the intention OF the
parties 20 IL, and. indeed. when the mat
ter of intention is properly understood,
as we shall presently explain, the inten-
tion is the tombstone. But to make the
validity OF the agreement turn upon the
intention as that intention is limited and
defined by the Journal of Commerce.
would break up ali cooperative action
amongst men and turn the hands of time
back u thousand years.
We will introduce what we have TO
say Of the true limits of intention by
| an illustration. Jones has a hat store
upon Broad street where he conducts
a most prosperous business. This tempts
the cupidity Of Smith, Tompkins. and
Brown. and they determine to form a
partnership ca trust in effect to get
Jones business away from him to them
selves. They open hat store immediate
~ by him and sell the same hats he sells
for one-half his price They drive Jones
out of the business and get it them
selves. Now this is a perfectly legitimate
transaction. although the parties to the
agreement went into IL with the express
purpose Of running Jones, with the ex-
press purpose Of securing a monopoly of
The hat business For themselves, and
with perfect Indifference as TO whether
ii interferred with or INSTRUCTED another's
AA'' iVNi ~ VI iihN' OF resulted IN a
public injury. Upon the other hand,
if Smith. Tompkins. and Brown had en-
tered into their agreement TO crafty
malignant and vmdictive feeling that
they bore towards Jones. and with the
single purpose of running him and not to
benefit themselves, their agreement
would have been a wrongful and an un-
| lawful one. The distinction lies at this
point Two or more men may lawfully
agree together TO cooperate for the in
jury Of another if their real purpose be
to benefit themselves. But ten or more
men cannot lawfully agree TO cooperate
for the purpose of injuring another when
a malicious injury to that other is the
sole purpose of their cor 'odcracy. That
is the tombstone of the case. II the par
ties are simply seeking to benefit them
selves it is Of no consequence that they
intend running a rival and monopollzing
the business. But if their real purpose
is simply TO inhict malicious injury
upon another. then their agreement is an
unlawful and criminal one.
This whole subject has lately uncor-
gone the most exhaustive examination
and debate by the best minds of England
IN the Mogul steamship Company's case.
and this is the conclusion that was ar
rived at. We cannot help thinking that
IT, is founded in the soundest morals
and sense:
When this principle is applied to the
| ordinary transactions of life. such as
mercantile partnerships. every one as
sents TO its Justice and force. But when
the trust appears with its arms OF
Briareus sweeping over whole districts
and States. then We begin TO rcbe. and in
Quire whether there is not something
faulty I'm the principle We should make
this inquiry with great dolibcration for
if the trust agreement is 10 more in
fact than the ordinary mercantile part
norship il is going to do us no real harm,
while interfering with it viii be inter-
rupting the due course Of law of ma
ture. ana we shall certainly do ourselves
thereby very great harm.
4 special question raised by the indict-
ment of the officers of the American
Tobacco Company. is whether there is
anything harmful in this company doing
upcn an immense scale what thousands
~ otI.r sop,nanins do x,-,tbopt r.ro.rty