Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1899-11-18
WHy GAS SIOCK IS FAILING.

The Supreme Court Of Illinois has
decided In an analogous case that the
Chicago Gas Trust Is IN illegal organ.
ixatlon.
The Chicago Gas Trust Is combina.
tion Of competing gus factories and can
easily be wiped out Of existence.
The man who buys Its stock Ii fool
because the fool and his money will be
soon parted.
The decision Of the Supreme Court Of
Illinois against the Glucose Sugar Re-
finlng Company shows that c0mbina.
lions Of competing factories may often
be prevented as easily as combInat lions
Of competing banks.
The Glucose Company was organized
under the corporation laws Of New
Jersey, and seems to have done nothing
In Illinois not authorized by the New
Jersey statutes.
But the Illinois laws, Of course, gov.
ern transactions within this State, and
the Illinois laws, as the Supreme Court
holds, forbid one corporation to sell its
property to competitor II the trans.
action has the effect Of regulating
prices, limiting competition or control.
ling production.
The unconstitutional act of 1907
which the Gas Trust bought from the
Legislature, has the effect of "regulat.
Ing prices, limiting competition and
controlling the production" Of gus In
Chicago. thereby creating monopoly.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois said In
the glucose case that 1.-THE material con.
sideratlOn In the case of such combina.
ton is, as general thing, not that
prices are raised, but that 1t rests In
the power and discretion Of the trust
or corporation to raise prices ut any
time II 1t sees fit to do SO. 1t does not
relieve the trust of Its Objectionable
features that 1t may reduce the price
Of the articles which 1t manufactures"
The same line Of reasoning Is followed
by one Of the courts Of Civil Appeals
Of Texas In an opinion just given by it.
The San Antonio Gas Company be-
came member of local combine
formed to control the public and private
lighting Of that city. Suit was brought
against the company to take away its
charter. The lower court held against
the company and Ia sustained by the
Appellate Court. That court says It
makes no difference II the immediate
result Of combination Is the temper.
airy reduction Of prices. ITO fix by
combination rate lower than the one
that has prevailed carries with 1t the
power and ability to establish higher
ones" Even though prices are reduced
by the combination, "a dangerous, arbi.
trary power has been lodged In its
hands by which the business of the
country may be absolutely destroyed
and prices arbitrarily controlled regard
less Of the laws of trade or of supply
ana demand" The ability ito raise or
lower prices Of commodities must not,
In the opinion Of the court, be tolerated
for moment.
The popular detestation of trusts Is
due largely to the belief, warranted In
most instances, that they raise prices
and are organized with that end In
view. Should there be a combination
which unquestlonably lowered prices,
letting the consumers share In Its econ.
omics, there would not be much Sc
we're criticism Of It by those consumers.
That the combination had the power to
raise prices would not alarm them
much SO long as 1t lowered prices in.
stead of raising them. The courts Of
Illinois, Texas and other States which
have expressed themselves recently
on this subject Of cOmbinat tons do not,
however, draw any distinctions be-
tween beneficent combines which lower