New-York tribune., 1899-03-22
LAWS AGAINST COMBINING.

The Attorney General Of New-Jersey doubt
less desired 10 serve the public as far as he
could in the form OF bill which he submitted
regarding combinations. Unhappny the prob
lem presented is one which purity Of intention
will not solve Nor will his skill in the law be
questioned by asking whether the bill, If IT
were passed. would accomplish what the legis-
lature wants or do any practical good. His an
swer to the Legislature shows that he under
stands the difficulty Of framing measure
which will successfully pass judicial criticism
and reach the object Of its trainers. He Is not
aware Of any legislation which has passed that
test nor is any judicial construction found of
such State law. although in eleven States out
of eighteen from which his inquiries were an
swered laws against combinations exist IT Is
n striking evidence Of the illsuccess Of such
legislation thus far that among all the enact
ments not one has passed judicial criticism.
The form Of law which the Attorney General
submits does not seem more likely to answer
the purpose than the various laws which have
been already enacted. 1t is made msde-
meanor TO enter into any arrangement the
"object or effect Of which is to restrain or pre-
went competition in the supply or price OF any
commodity. If literally construed this pro-
vision would not he sustained by any court, be-
cause the right Of two persons or corporations
10 agree that they will ask the same price or
will not overload their market is one which the
LEGISLATURE has no constitutional power TO take
away. But II not literally construed. the words
.to the public injury must be mentally insert
cd and then who can say what restriction or
supply or price Is such a public injury that II
comes within the law? II must he general
and serious injury. or the Legislature would not
have the power 10 deprive individuals OF their
right and tie trade Of its freedom hut as no.
body has yet been able 10 define In any law the
extent or kind Of injury which should make
combinations misdemeanor nobody has yet
drawn law which has practically accom-
plished the object sought.
The proposed law would also make II a mis-
demeanor for any person or corporation to en-
ter into any compact or agreement ITO regu-
late limit or fix the quantity or amount 10
be produced or sold Of any commodity. Here
arc two farmers who raise cranberries. Each
has natural right 10 produce as much or as
little as he likes But II the two compare views
about Il and agree. is that misdemeanor?
Everybody knows that no court or jury would
ever convict these two farmers. but the law
has no more validity on the one hand or mean
ing on the other II applied TO two corporate
persons The bill says that two persons or cor
porations must not agree 10 fix any terms by
which the price Of a commodity shall he III
any manner affected" but no two persons or
corporat tions could exercise their most obvious
and necessary natural rights without violating
IN terms such a provision. Nor would any
court hold II constitutional, without the under
stood condition that the influence on prices be
hurtful 10 the public. But until somebody can
make 1t clear what restriction OF supply or In
fiuence over prices is OF such harm to the pub
lie as to warrant legislative prohibition, laws
have no effect.
After good many years OF experience IN
trying 10 frame and enforce laws against trusts
and combinations the country does not seem
TO have made the slightest progress. according
'o the statement OF the Attorley-General OF