The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-04-30

Il. case IA indeed desperate when 1t feels
driven TO this proposition. That idea
was ,rst dealt with satisfactorily by the
no,itical economist MacCulloch who show
al 70 n demonstration that a bad act
can not be generated by the mere null
ur,.catioh OF acts that are perfectly in
nocent' See his treatise on wages End
n. 90. The subject is dealt with by Pro-
fessor Jevors most admirably in his work
on 1.-THE state in Relation to Labor" p.
10. The idea is repudiated also by the
Judges in the great case OF Mogul Steam
shin VS. McGrecor. app. cases. 1899, p. %.
As the Journal OF Commences PROPOSE
ton combines so many heterogeneous ele-
ments that an analysis IL it would occupy
too much space, we think 1t better TO
quote what It says in extenso. 1t says:
There is in all the alarmist discussion
of the effect on property OF recent declar-
atlons of anti-monopoly law, perverse
ignoring Of the fact that there Is an essen
tial difference between the exercise OF his
rights by the individual and the exercise
OF the same rights in combination with
others. IL as an elementary maxim that
there Is no more sacred right OF citizen
ship than the right TO adopt and follow
any lawful employment, as an individual
may see fit. without any unreasonable
reputation or molestation. The only re-
straint on this liberty Of individual action
Is 10 be found in the duty which each one
owes 10 the community. 10 so use his Own
as not 10 iniure the rights Of others. The
law does not ignore the possibility OF ne
full enjoyment OF this liberty OF ind
vidnal action leading TO the creation O;
such n monopoly as would he proiic
injury. But il has not found IL necessary
TO punish Individual trade meihods
which IN the case Of associations OF IN.
dlyiduals are deemed not only unlawful
but criminals. The reason or TINS oush'
IN he obvious: for. should n considerable
number Of Individual traders combine
their interests for the purpose OF prevent
Ing general competition. the case Is nc
longer that Of an individual exercising
his individual rights but Of comhina'
ton Of individuals seeking 10 exercise
combined individual rights. each using
the rights of all the others.
The references we have given sufficient
" deal with the fundamental proposition
upon which all this rests, but we desire
TO ask how a mercantile partnership
could exist II the theories advanced here
were part Of our institutions?
Is not every mercantile partnership =
case in which number OF individuals
have combined their interests?" and does
not every such partnership do ali In us
power to secure a monopoly of its bush
ness. and drive off competition IS much
as II can? That is the whole aim of
mercantile partnership. If the Journal Of
Commerce means to say that mercantile
partnerships are opposed TO the spirit o.
our institutions. then we can, of course,
understand where it stands. whatever we
may think of its position. But # 1t con-
cedes that mercantile partnerships are
consistent with the spirit Of our institu'
tons, at what point is II going to draw
the line? What is the number of men
who may Combine their interests in a
mercantile partnership, and when does
the number become so great that the
combination has become a vicious assem-
bly,? and If mercantile partnership may
do certain things towards securing mo-
nopoly OF their business and killing COM
petition, when is the point reached that
turns its lawful efforts in that direction
into vicious and unlawful efforts?
These are practical questions which
real thinkers like MacCulloch and Jevous
felt the force of when they conceded that
whatever one man might properly do
when acting alone. a number Of men
might equally do when acting together
in concert. If the Journal Of Commerce
can show them to be in error we would
like to see It do So