The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-24
TRUSTS AND MoSoPOfIEs.

IIefs - n very Cisaf clsllnfNon 10 De
MADE between the two decisions relating
20 trade combinations published yerster-
day. The supreme court OF the United
States mas decided that the traffic agree
ment pool IL Illegal. and on the came cay
tas court OF common pleas OF Ohio de-
eideo that the action Of the sugar trust in
determining TO sell sugar at price 81 low
as 20 drive cut competition was not Illegal
In the absence OF the text Of these dec
sions. comment must Dc restricted 10 ta0
synopsis published. but that seems 70 state
the case very fairly.
The distinction between the two IL that
in one the purpose was 20 keep prices ~
and in the other 20 force them down. Hay-
Ing driven out competition. Il was no doubt
intended TO put them up again. but there
il no proof OF that and the court could
deal only with the facts before 1t.
Yet II would almost seem as II the rail-
road pool were more honorable that the
sugar trust The methods or the former
are certainly more TO tie advantage OF the
public. and they constitute the difference
between a trust and monopoly. The rail-
roads combined 10 maintain prices at u
point which should afford profit. instead
Of suffering from a rate war which vas
driving than all into the hands or recesv-
ers. So long as these railroads remained
independent organizations there was hope
for the people that competition would keep
them from imposing exorbitant rates. and
-
contest for business. But the case Of the
sugar trust uIscloses an apparent purpose
to crush out competition and create
monopoly from which there would be lit
tie chance OF relief. for every new at
tempt to introduce competition would be
fought down by the same methods. Com
binations on rates by rival concerns are
usually only temporary. are always curbed
against excessive charges by the jealousy
OF members. and rarely form a serious
detrlment 10 business. Monopolies. on the
other hand. are usually greedy. cold-b,ood-
ed and tyrannieally arbitrary. This is IL
lustratsd by a comparison of results whe--
ever these conditions exist. The failure OF
one trust after another has been recorded.
and traffic agreements are VIGOROUSLY dlf-
fcult to maintain. Where. however. there
Is an absolute monopoly. as In the case OF
the Southern Pacific railroad or the Stand
ard OH Company, the people must submit
to pay ''all the traffic viii bear
The sugar trust took a most ingenious
| method Of protecting itself BY buying the
| controlling interest IN a corporation. and
| by the action OF it, directors declared the
| war OF prices which was to ruin its rivals.
| The court held that the competitor must
| bow 10 that law Of trade which allows
every man to dispose OF his own property
| IN the ordinary course Of business on such
| terms - he sees nt. Indeed. nearly every
business adopts the plan OF selling below
| cost-or OF processing to--at times. TX IL
a common practice FOR a business house to
| attract business by holding out the induce
| mont OF one article AZ a loss 10 the seller
| The great department stores do It sys-
| tematicaiiy and make tho business pay.
| While. therefore. the ultimate purpose Of
the sugar trust Il vs-y manifest It does not
| seem that the decision OF the court. on the
/ facts submitted. was either unreasonable
as TO the parties or against public policy.