The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-08-29

ton of the parties 10 forming their agree
ment. and their operation Under u. must
De tie test
Air. Royal cites numerous authorities
IN SUPPORT az thes. contentious. and par
ticulariy quotes from the case ~ the DO
sui Steamship Company decided by me
English House 90 Lords - i.sl, where
Lord Morris said 90 delivering lis juds-
meuts what one trader may DO 10 re-
spect ct competition q body or set OF
traders may lawfully do. And further
1T Is not Illegal for trader 20 aim az
driving competitor olt oI trace pro-
vded the motive be bis own gain by ap-
prorriaton OF the trade" And again;
u entertain no doubt that body O. trad
ers. whose motive object ls 20 promote
tleir own trade can combine 10 acquire,
and thereby IN 50 Tar % inilre, tie trade
q councillors provided they DO no more
than IS inciden; % such motive object
AID use 10 unlawful means From this
Mr. Rovsll deducts fle rule that az agree
ment which c0ntemplates injury 20 an
other but only 70 necessarily Incident
10 the purpose o. tie contractors 20 ben
standing the inisrti1n 90 inJure But an
agreement IN which the parties 90 not
aim al ifrpr0vil- thair own conditions.
but aim AZ simply doing another ma
hcious injury. will hs q vicious and bad
agreement. The principle here is tha;
as they please. aa1 may DO what they
please with their own 50 long as they
arc bona fts seeking 20 benefit them
selves and are not aiming az the malicious
Injury of their ,elow men. The alter
native idea which turns courts loose 90
fudge OF the validity or invalidity OF each
particular agreement accordingly as The
Judge NAV think DO IN harmony or out u
harmony with his ideas 81 public policy.
leaves the question u the citizens rights
b.. HHH =" H.Hn-
ton. Of a fudge u ls that sort OF equity
which is msasured by the chancellor
foot.
Alr. Rovan admits that there are Eng
iish cases ante-dating the Mogul Steam
ship Company case. ana cases IN Ameri-
ca both before and since that decision
In which contracts have been held void
where no eleme ~ q malice was pres
ent, But be thinks they can all be sat
isfsctorilv disposed OF. and they must
nov be abantouel. when the reasons up
on which they ere based are critically
considered and compared with the reasons
for ceasing % r. gard them as any longer
guides All II them he declares are based
unon reasons growing out ~ feudalsm
and Nfddie-Age notions q political econ
ouv Speaking Win reference 20 the de-
cision OF the United States Supreme
Court in the T-lln N. ssolFi freight cases
Which SAID in eject that the Antitrust
Act Of rCrgress makes every agree
r,ant thst puts any rfstricticrs un0n
trade void Mr.. royal contends that there
is vice IN the Courts afgument and tnat
the vice IS In cCnfounding restrictions
upon trade with the lssal idea ~ re
ef~afr-s mon trade. he rra.ufairk too.
rfar MS rrouc siti0n was urt submitted
Ia the Court in the arElu.elt az fhat case
or considered bv II. and thar the decision
therefore cannot be claimed 10 DO a. a.
clsion against u
Il does not follow because an agreement
between men nay put restrictions uron
some soft OF traflc somewhere. that such
Agreements must Eeces-aEily orlrat= as.
Restraints upon trade II j. not rossi-
be. the writer lfses, 20 have trade VITA
out restrictions = some sort upon some
sort Of trade. Trade is nothing but 4
vast aggregation CT contracts. ana con-