The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-08
SOME TRUST HISTORY.
Cases Adjudning Agreement and
Combinations 10 be Illegal.

Cases Adjudeirg Agreement and
Combinations 10 be Illegal.
To the Editor of The Post.
Houston. Texas, May lin these times
when trusts are discussed by every one
and the legislature of Texas is considering
the question and attempting to graphic
with the monster, especially in view of the
fact that, even down to the necessities Of
life the same have TO be conteEded with
il may be well to present 10 the people
the origin and history Of the same
l have In my possession a brief which
some years ago was sent to me by my old
time friend General Roger A. Pryor OF
Virginia. who stands behind no one in
legal ability and literary attainments,
then a member of the New York bar and
later judge of the supreme court of New
York City.
/ think | may be bold enough to say
that in research, in perspicacity and in
logic it is we'll worthy of consideration,
both by the profession and by the laymen.
l give such portions only as relate 10
agreements tending 10 monopoly, and with
the single remark that corporations are
not exempt from the rule;
Agreements tending to monopoly. l. e.,
fany combination among merchants TO
raise the price of merchandise to the det-
riment of the public tBouvers Law
Dict. "Monopoly'), are Illegal. Arnott
VS.. Coal Company. 6S n. Y. $50; Stanton
VS.. Allen, 3, DEMO, 434; Clancy vs. Salt
Company. 90 Barb, 395; Hooper VS. Van
derwater, DEMO, 349 People VS.. Fisher.
II Wend. 9-l9; COLES VS. Trow Company,
il Hun, 397; Watson VS.. The Companies.
81 How, 34s; Coal Company VS.. Coal
Company, 6S Penn. St, 1872; Salt Company
vs. Guthrie. So, Ohio ST.. 672: Croft ys.
McConoughy 10 H., 3S9; Santa Clara VS..
Hayes, IS Alb L. j., 27a; Bank vs.. King,
"A n. Y, 81 Case of Monopolies. II Coke,
81 Raymond VS.. Leavitt 46 Mich, Az;
India Bag Company VS.. Koch, IA La Ann,
1854; Ray vs.. Mackin, 100 H., 246; People
VS.. Stevens, II N. Y, 545; Marsh VS.. Rus
sell. &c n, T., 2SS; Hartford. etc. VS..
Railroad Company, Robt., III; Hilton
VS.. Eckersley, Ell. and b.. AZ. Central.
etc, VS.. Collins, 40 Ca, 646; Hoffman VS..
Brooks. II Weekly Law Bulletin, 25s
And, in all the cases adiudgng monopoly
agreements and combinations to be Illegal,
the ground of decision is that they tend to
the public prejudice by preventing comus-
tition and enhancing prices.
Monopolies are justly odious, as they
operate not only injurious to trade. but
against the general prosperity of the Icur-
try (Charles River Bridge VS. Warren
me statute against monopoles is The
magma charta of British industry" %
Kent, 27l, marginal note c.)
1t is against the general policy of the
law TO destroy or interfere with free com
petition, or to permit such destruction mr.
interference. An unauthorized monopolv
therefore, is against public policy as de-
.stroying or interfering with free competi-
uon' Stewart VS.. The Company, II
a contract which tends to create and
perpetuate monopoly is against public
policy tGas Company VS.. Gas COMPANY
Am. State Reports, 124)
In its very nature right TO excluae
competition is injurious to the public
Getty VS.. Gas Light Company, 70 Mo, s9A
competition is the life OF trade. and
Whatever destroys or even relaxes compe
t u IN trade Is injurious If not fatal 10
1t. q DEMO. 353; IA Wend.. TO-
Public policy favors competition in
,fadc tc the end that is commodities NAV
DC AFFORDED to the consumer as cheaDlv as
pvsslple' and 1t is opposed 10 monopolies
Nnich tend to enhance market prices to
me injury OF the general public" (SaIt
company VS.. Guthrie, IS Ohio ST. sss ~
lhefe are three inseparable Incidents
TO every monopoly; that the price of th.
commodity will he raised that the com.
monty is not so good and merchandise
y, ns ueioIe' mat It tends to the impoverish-
mem OF artihoers and others" and SO a
'narter OF monopoly was held void az
AGAINST common right and the liberty ~
me subject, (The Case of Monopolies
II Coke, S4.) 0Poiies'
WIN results naturally flowing tror
Ne avs OF supply and demand The conrts
paNe nothing to do; but when agreements
gre resorted TO for the purpose Of taking
.Iaue OUT OF the realm OF competition tbs
"a can not he successfully invoked
;nu tneir execution will be left TO the w.
llion of the parties thereto IS,a
lara, etc, VS.. HAYES. 8s Albany I To',c
1's' Gal Supreme Court
AN agreement between sharsbolao..
lpt 10 sell their respective stock wItho',s
ne concurrent consent of ali is void he
,auSe IN restraint of trade and as,ins,
S y, poiioy Fisher VS.. Bush, s5 Hun
An agreement by several firms no, ~
ori,t. DeW win the consent of the ma
oiiS q combination to enhance rrioo
mo unlawful India Bag Connsrp i,ue
>uch' - La. Ann, 1887 70
.-o Arnot vs.. Coal COMPANY ss NJ Y
r. the purpose of the arrangement ,.,,
W artnoially enhance the nricai ~ coai
's su tne court held that "a ,ombinet,o,, a.
'i,ect such purpose is inimicol IN tba -.
G Sa OF me public, and all contracrs da
g I npbI 10 e meet such an end are contrary
md thar ,b p'olcX and therefore Illegal
Il S,s aeludiested cases TO be ouestions ,I'sl
nus rs aay page 56s.) ls0''oueu AZ
Hun s Soies VS. The Trow Company l,
men, S He', me court held that an asree. |
unds ~ a,etenaant company to expend i,s |
nj IN stopping the eempetition ~ -
az 80 ultra Vlres and void spyine No.. |
he Inc corporation was not created pI ssr
STA hiisp.se OF destroying competition and |
ham Io. snah monopoly in any way ot i
erior Sasn as might be incidental 10 The 81.
eIlenee sna rvs manufactures and their ex- |
10 me People vs. Fisher IA wsna
ne she SQUIRT say that 'competit,on "a -
' r,s 2, trade. and that 'comblnstiors an ne
rticIe ~ ,rsa to enhance the prices Of sns
D the pnhiir ., commerce are Injurious.
grant OF an exclusiva ,ts.s.