The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-08
i. sss, Russ. or. Law, ies, 3 Ins.
| earned attorney then proceeds as

q. 9b', nu5S. ~ -
learned attorney then proceeds as
.horacter OF the combination,
lending to monopoly and injurions
nrblic. will be determined by the
ans m the instrument constituting
nnt reference TO it's effects in ac-
berstion.
IN establish monopoly and to
co,nnetition in trade. 1t is no
~ saw that competition in the salt
ss not in fact destroyed. or that
',s ~ the commodity was not un-
ably advanced Courts Will not stop
r,ire as to the degree of injury in
upon the public IL is enough to
hat the inevitable tendency OF such
cts is injurious 70 the public"
"a. VS.. Guthrie. 80 Ohio St, SIS.
hilton VS.. EcAersly, 8 Ellis d 81, AZ,
nd Campbell, C. j., constituting the
soly agreement in question. said:
Id not think that any averment Is
ary as to what has been done under
az 10 any mischief which 1t has
" produced. We are to consider
NAV be done under 1t. and what
lief may thus ARISE.
,lancy VS.. Salt Company, So Barb,
he court say
Il impossible for any man, in read
his agreement. not to see that the
Of the parties to 1t was to limit
oduction of salt--to create monop-
nd to increase the price of SALT
mon the terms of agreement the
held 1t Illegal on general principles
xAtcnison VS.. Mallon. 43 N. Y, 149.
olger, j.:
Is not necessary for the determine
of this case to inquire whether the
OF the agreement between the pa.
was in fact detrimental. The true
Nv Is. is il the natural tendency of
an agreement to injuri1usly influence
bublic interests? The rule is. that
ments. which. In their necessary
{tiop. tend to restrain natural rivalry
competion. and thus result in disad-
&c to the public, are against the
kiples OF sound public policy, and
n will the court be deceived by the
kible professions of purpose on the
of the paper. but will construe 1t
its manifest tendency.
he law is not to be hoodwinked by
Fable pretenses,"
|aw. C. j.. Com. VS.. Hunt. IS Am,
1 Bats.
BOXER vs. vandewatcr. 4 DEMO, 3o2.
anton VS.. Allen, Dento, i40.
utter of Jacobs, 9S n. Y, 10.
Ilgler vs. Kansas, 1923 L. s., 661.
|sher vs.. Bush, 35 HIn, 6i3
New York Bulletin Of April /, 1889,
|ained the following article that seems
bnent II not absolutely conclusive.
II It Is to be the future order of things
each OF the Industries is to be III
tge OF one trust and competition there
Excluded. what follows? Among other
|gs, such as these ~ The creation OF
many distinct dominating classes as
have Industries, to whom all other in
lists will be selfshly subjected and
Prdinated. (2) A domination OF cap
over labor which would leave to the
|kman, not the highest wages he could
from among host of competitors fol
labor. but lust what the one monop-
employee may arbitrarily choose ia
him. (3.) The encouragement of the
duction of raw materials through the
ftant forcing down of their price that
les by combining the demand to one
chaser. IA The encouragement of in
tion by restricting production to one
mmoth corporation; who, with no feat
D competitor before their eyes, would
lees necessitated to keen up with the
tch of discovery and little disposed tc
maturely destroy old plant for better
The creation of fierce antagnnislns be.
en trusts whose interests might be
1cting, causing Interruptions to bust.
s far more serious than those we suf-
from the worst forms of strike. C6.1
subjecting OF the whole distributing
de to Just such conditions and com
stations as the monopolist produce,
Y choose to dictate. with no possihilit,
recourse or redress. a. The old plan
our industries (Which should have beer
'Wed TO give place to new in a natura
y, having been absorbed into the
nopolies, will have to do duty with IN,
proved and will thus be conserved Il
as drag upon the efficiency anC
nomy OF production. 49, The introdue.
OF very serious changes in the iela.
rs OF banking to commerce; for, undel
trust system. the banks would have
carry a whole industry in one sole
On, ana not as at present, divided
ong among wide diversity of lndiviG
nrms' l9') The owning and contro
me banks. In large measure, oy On,
nopolies, in order to protect their owl
mmotn interests and also 10 hold fl
more complete subsection such othe,
s,ests as might not relish their indus
y domination. t10l The creation o
industrial aristocracy of immens,
yer which would foster class hoslIl
&, &. emb'tter politics and endanger In,
.aese PRINCIPLES seem to be In accord
I WIN natural iusti9e and right. an,
~, 1e passed on the recognized axiom
nus populas supreme est sew an,
, ,ea on the doctrine of political economy
sucn may be of interest to you
go ieauers' e. P. Turner.