The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-05-16
AN ARGUMENT FOR pools AMI
.TEUSTS."


namphlet OF forty-seven pages ehtiueu'
THE pool and .he Trust. Iheir Siue -
the Case. Review OF the supreme
coprt's Traffic Decision. BY William H.
Ro,an. OF the Richmond. Va ana ne"
York city Bar. George NJ. West PUP
| Usher"
Mr. Rovall tells us in his Introduction
that he is 4 believer in the pool ana the
trust as a product Of evolution ~
which natural laws put that curb upo"
destructive competition that steam' eie0
,r,c,tv and modern machinery nave
brought about. that would destroy al
oo,o,e,itors without some such brake
The pamphlet is accordingly devoted 10
an effort to show that the poor anu
"trust'' are not only in harmony with INC
essential principles Of our laws but 'n@'
they are necessary and actually fan I'M
der the protection OF the Constitution u
the United States.
Asa further indication OF the scope ana
purpose Of the essay, VIC quote Ifoi" 10
opening pages the following'
AS a great deal of discussion VIII Turn
upcn what IS and what IS not pun
nolicv, and what are restraints upo"
trade It may be as well to st@'e d. NV
beeinning that shall contend ,.
fs1 Tbat the public policy OF people
en- far as the subject under DISCUSSION -
concerned. varies with conditions anu -
whatever existing conditions Oh ~.
require it to be, Notwithstanding :,
courts. aforetime, may have oeclaie~ -
10 be. 49,. ,,ot
(b) That restrictions upon trace are ~ ~,
ne ,essarily restraints upon uaue ~ '-0
| legal sense Of that phrase -.,-.,...
! (c) And that. IN legal contemplation
| no contract that several persons make
~ rortv 10 can be a'restraint upon
| I'd. In the legal sense Of those WORDS
uoicqs they are animated by malice OF
an will towards some person or persons.
This will. of course. lead TO tho concur
eion tina the contract was before the Su-
irene Court OF the United States IN the
Trans-Missouri traffic case was not
contract in restraint Of trade.
1t will be properly inferred, therefore,
that Mr.. Royal thinks the Supreme
Courts decision in the tranic case was
wrong. and we are not prepared to say
that his very comprehensive and pointed
review OF that decision IS erroneous. He
justifes the attack he makes upon 1t by
pointing out that the questions involved
come up for reargument before the SUI
preme Court in October next. and they
are not. therefore. 10 be considered as
/ - hp
view ne presents was not presented to the
Supreme Court by the counsel who argued
the case when It was before that tri-
bunal nor IS 1t even limited at in either
the majority or the minority opinion that
was delivered. The case is. therefore.
Mr.. Royal claims. a wholly undecided
one so far as the view Of the subject
that he presents IS concerned.
The subject discussed is one Of the very
greatest possible moment to all the peo-
pie of the United States, and we. there
fore. welcome Mr.. Royals contribution
TO the discussion. Whether his view shall
ultimately prevail or not. it cannot be de-
MED that he has maintained it with in
cenulty and force. and that it will IN
terest the reader whether he agrees with
1t or not.
Founding himself upon the recent great
decision Of the English House OF Lords
in the case Of the Mogul Steamship Com
panv VS.. McGregor he argues that 1t Is
| part Of the natural liberty Of every man
70 enter into any agreement whatever
with any other man or any other number
Of men. TO do any lawful thing whatever
that aims at their own good, provided the
parties are not inspired by malice OF III
will towards some other person or per-
sons. and that the test whether any
| agreement is or is not had, is the gnes-
ton whether the parties to it intend 10
innlct an injury upon another from mo-
tives Of malice.
Mr.. Royal points out that the Mogui
Steamship case was before the Englsh
nubljc for five years, and, involving all
| the elements Of pools and trusts II
was debated there by the best minds Of
| England, whether layhlSH Va ''"'-
that this was determined by the House
Of Lords to be the sole limitation upon
mems freedom Of action.
He contends, therefore, that the case
IS authority for the proposition that from
the beginning the principles Of the com
mon law permitted what are now called
trusts" or pools" and that whatever
&c n be found in the law books that
condemns them was an expression OF a
nublc policy that depended upon the con-
dition Of the people at the time the de-
cIarations were made. These declarations
were made when conditions were totally
different from what they now are ane
the rule Mr.. Royal insists, Is to 81
changed. with the changed conditions
His pamphlet IS an argument for freedom
70 the citizen in all things, so long as ne
trespasses upon no right of any other
and that is a proposition which has al
ways made powerful appeal to INT
Times.
DEMOCRATS AND POPULIsIs.