The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-07
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY"

in the course Of some discussion that
has taken place at one time and another
between the Norfolk Virgnian and Pilot
and The Times we understood the Yir-
ginian and Pilot to take the ground that
it was not opposed to all trusts, but only
TO those which operated to the public in
jury. Desiring to argue this matter out
with our contemporary we asked it in
perfectly good faith to specify what was
TO be considered a harmful trust and
what an innocent one-where was the
line to % drawn upon one side OF which
were the bad trusts and upon the other
Of which were the good ones. The only
reply we got to this request was a re-
quest from the Virginian and Pilot that
we tell it what is an unlawful conspir-
acy at common law?" and what do we
mean when we speak Of restraint Of
trader"
As we are not likely to get any nearer
together by questions and answers. The
Times will proceed this morning to dis
cuss the subject in a general way and the
Virglnian and Pilot will then be able 10
answer the questions it asks us for itself
We take it in a general way that every
citizen has a natural and an inherent
right to do whatever he pleases with him
self or with what is his. so long as he
does not interfere with the rights Of some
one else.
At one time and another It has been
contended that while this was true, yet
the same act might become unlawful II
done by several in concert, that would
be perfectly lawful if done by one man
alone. But it has been found that this
contention will not bear examination.
The political economist MacCulloch ex-
amined this subject with great per-
spicuity in his treatise on wages Second
edition; page 800. and he very thoroughly
demonstrates that "a criminal act can
not be generated by the mere multiplied
ton Of acts that are perfectly innocent"
The late Professor w. Stanley Jevons
took the subject up at that point in his
little book "The State in Relation TO La
Dor" and he argued most satisfactorily
page l2g that while this was so. yet an
act innocent in itself when done by one
might become vicious when done by
many by reason Of the intention with
which the many were actuated. lie in
stanced the case OF a man walking the
street Every man has a right TO 10 this.
but II a number agree 10 meet at a GER
tain point and walk the street together,
80 as TO make a blockade, the act be-
comes vicious by reason OF this bad in
tention. He concluded. therefore. that
when many do together a thing innocent
in Itself. but with an intention to injure
some one else, this combination becomes
vicious.
This this will not do either.
A. has a hat store upon Broad street,
IN which he is doing such a successful
business that Il excites the cupidity Of
y. G.. and D.. ana they agree together TO
open hat store by his side and sell hats
at half what he does 10 drive him out OF
the business and get It for themselves.
Now here is a case in which the express
purpose OF the parties TO the agreement
IS to injure another and yet it is one OF
the customary competitions OF business
and perfectly legitimate.
But suppose b. c. and d. had not want
ed TO get the business For themselves. but
hated A. and did the thing TO crafty
their malicious feelings and TO drive A.
and his family into the street as beg
gdrs. This. We insist, ana The courts say.
would have been an unlawful combina-
ton.
We submit. then, that the test of
whether a combination Is good or bad.
lawful or unlawful is TO be found at this
point. II the parties TO the combination
are aiming at their own good only, the
combination is a good one. although they