The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-22

me Spokesman Review. since II be-
came a populist organ. has fallen into
All the faults and maunerisTas q It's
new friends. II is slipshod in It's state
r,,ants q fact and wild-eyed in is logic
II saws sEeaking of the decision OF the
supreme court on the mortgage laws,
that IL bears out just what has been
advanced from The beginning by the
Spokesman Review. that under the
new Law loans could Dr. made upon real
estate with perfect safety" In other
words, now that the snake has teen
scotched and made safe from mischief.
the Review takes credit for having al
ways said il was safs eFen without
scotching
The Spokesrnan-Review says there
must b. a lawful limitation somewhere
upon the right u contract, and the line
Of dernarcation ought 10 be defined BY
tn highest court In the land.
The principle II well established and
some OF the rulings are as old as any.
TIE general right OF contract is regard
ed By every authority as one OF the
most invaluable possessions OF free
man II is true that the right Is guard
I'd b. y hat Is known as the policy Of
the Iaw. or public policy, but one Of the
most eminent authorities on the sub
iect gives warning that. while ii is a
phrase Of frequent occurrence and
somewhat attractive sound. IL is very
easily capable Of introducing an un
satisfactory vagueness into the Law.
The earliest known examples of such
restrictions applied 10 agreements in
tended 10 promote litigation or sought
. 10 restrain trade or marriage. II is
now known. however that whatever
may have been the origin Of the doc
tTlue. il was applied very frequently,
ana not always with the happiest re-
suits. during the latter part Of the last
and the commencement of the present
century. Mr. Justice Jessel is quoted as
having said: You have this paramount
public policy to consider. that you are
not lightly to interfere with the free
dom of contract" While maintaining
the duty Of the courts 10 consider the
public advantage. modern decisions
have tended 10 limit the sphere WITHIN
"a Il 10 \
the ground. "a Justice Jessel may be
said To have put IL, that in seeking 10
promote public policy it might become
likely To interfere with the paramount
public policy.
The term contrary to statute il
sometimes held 10 include any deyia-
ton from the lines laid down in a
statute relating 10 civil affairs. but il
does not follow that this Is meant. A
better Interpretation would b. that a
contract made contrary To statute is
void II 1t agrees u do that which is
directly forbidden By statute. In this
country wagering contracts are regard
"a as void. \ contract agreeing to
pay consideration for past cohabltation.
for instance. would not be regarded "a
contrary 10 public policy, but rather as
sort Of reparation for a wrong: but
an agreement in which future cohabita-
tiou was the consideration would he
absolutely void ard unenforceable.
Among other transactions which the
legislatures have been upheld In de-
timing as against public policy is an
agreement to contraveue the laws II a
foreign country, one whose object Is TO
Induce any officer Of the state 10 act
partially or corruptly: FOR the sale u
an office. for the purpose of sitting
criminal prosecution g" as tending to OBJ
stEaet the course Of public justice.
agreements relating To proceedings in
civil courts involving anything incou-
SsStent - the fau and impartial course
" justice therein.
Contracts Ia total restraint ~ trade
are void hIt where tho restraint is
partial and reasonable. ana founded
upon a good consideration. they are
valid.
II is very remarkable thing tina. IA
rar,e 0hi-h Processes to h. based 0ran
1he widest possible individual liberty
makes every usv Z its power - r.
a.~g-s sst,artt- -Y-k. III.