The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-02-27
Tie "Trust" Puzzle.

TINS committee the TWO most damaging
facts which appear are % that trusts
tend upon the whole to destroy COM
petition, and (2) that they also tend
TO decrease the opportunities for the
employment of labor. There are eXcep-
tions to both of these statements, nev-
ertheless they comprise the rules. 1t is
not established that trusts as rule go
far in the direction of increasing the
selling prices of the products which they
control, and when in exceptional cases
they do, the records show that their
mortality is great, in witness whereof
may be cited the cases of the wire nail
trust, the steel rail pool, the window
glass trust and several others.
That trusts are a serious menace to
the consuming public in the sense that
they practice eXtortion is, in our opin-
ion, not yet proved, at least so far as
the LeXow committees inquiries have
gone. Therefore one principal clause
trade combinations must for the pres
ent be dismissed as without foundation.
II is true that the Capitalization of
power over the production of a given
community in the control of one cor
poration involves the risk of an unwar
ranted increase of prices, but thus far
this risk has been potential rather than
actual. The main purpose of trusts
thus far has been to introduce econ
omies of production and management
and upon the whole prices have fallen
in consequence thereof.
But it remains to be considered
whether it is for the public interest
that free competition shall be over
come. Though the effect of it's remov-
al should be a temporary fall in prices
this would probably be more than coun-
terbalanced by a simultaneous con-
striction of the labor market and it's
ultimate evil effect in sapping inde-
pendent manhood Is not to be ques-
toned. For this reason, therefore. if
for no other, iudicious legal restriction
of trade combinations is to be approved.
In this connection the Indiana assem-
bly,, largely under the guidance of eX-
Attorney General Miller, has passed a
measure worthy of experimental trial.
In its definitions of a trust are in
cludcd all forms of agreements entered
into with design to limit and control
the production or manufacture of pro-
ducts, to enhance values or TO interfere
with the principles Of free competition
in trade. Persons convicted of such
combinations are to be punished for
criminal conspiracy, charters are to be
annulled and all agreements operative
within the state, even if entered into
outside of it, are to be illegal and void.
For carrying into effect any of the
illegal acts named in the bill the pun
ishment shall be imprisonment in the
penitentiary not to exceed five years
nor less than one year, and a fine
not to exceed $1,000 All combinations
existing before the passage of the pro-
posed law are within thirty days after
the bills passage, to file with the sec
retary OF state a population of the
agreement, or, as a penalty, surrender
their charters.
1t is not clear to US that such a law
does not infringe the right of contract.
AS Judge Swayne of the Texas supreme
court recently said in an opinion over
| throwing an antitrust enactment liz
| that state:
one of the most sacred rights of lib
erty is the right of contract. All of the
| rights of contract which are necessary
| for the carrying on of ordinary business
affairs are protected by the constitution,
and are not capable of being restrained
| by legislative action. Among these rights
| is that of forming business relations be-
| tween man and man. a man may form
| business relations with whom he pleases,
! and in the conduct of such business they
| may fix and limit the character and
| amount of their business, the price they
will charge for the produce which they
| offer to the public, or about which they
contract. 1t is part of the natural and
| civil liberty to form business relations,
| free from the diCtations of the state; that
| a like freedom should be secured and en-
| joyed in determining the conditions and
| terms of the contract, which constitutes
| the basis of the business relations or
| transactions. 1t is, therefore, the general
| rule that a man is free to ask for his
| wares or his services whatever prices he
| is able to get and others are willing ia
| pay. The vice of the act in ques-
| ton is that 1t attempts to prevent too
| much; it does not stop at reasonable linn
/ it's; it is not content with making Crimi-
| nal general restraint of trade, but II
makes criminal all restrictions of trade.
| 1t is not content with aftiXing penalties
| TO acts or contracts which unreasonably
restrict competition; it condemns any
| agreement which prevents competition
| between two or more persons entering
! into IT,
Where, then, can the public draw the
| line? Can a lire be drawn by law
without sacrifice of fundamental
rights? These are questions fit foi
thoughtful consideration. We confess
that the more thoroughly we go into
the subject the more puzzling it ap'
pears,
We have reached a point in the his
| tory of the Cuban war when the right,