New-York tribune., 1899-07-14
THE PRoBLEM-TO CURE WITHOUT KILLING


There Is perhaps no other conundrum to which
the same answer Is given by sensible men so
commonly as TO the question, What should De
done about trusts? The foolish and the shallow
usually have answers ready, and about as many
as there are persons of that pattern But the
men Of sense answer. with more or less candor
according to their natures: at Is n hard ques
tion and we do not know yet" The more pol
itic say, Suppress all that do mischief and
then refrain from telling how. They are aware
that the effort has been made. 1t may be
doubted whether a sitter law to that end could
be drawn, not clearly unconstitutional and void
than the Sherman law of 1890, and yet no one
can distinctly explain what good 1t has done.
Nor is this because high officials were opposed
10 its enforcement. Neither Attorney General
Miller Of Indiana nor Attorney General Olney
u. ssachusetts felt any such restraint. The
difficulty was and ever has been TO find solid
legal proof Of violation OF the act by particu-
lar person or corporation.
II any companies determine to sell all that
they can, and to leave little business as
possible for competitors. that is not restricting
trade or commerce between the States, nor be-
tween the Territories and a State, nor between
the United States and other countries. If they
have competitors At all they do not establish
monopoly, although the price they name may fix
the price for the country because nobody else
can sell at lower. The form Of trust organ
zation was successfully attacked in various
States but only led TO the direct ownership Of
property by single corporation the form which
has now become so common. Every association
OF two or more persons in company Is a con-
spiracy In the eye OF Governor Pingree's Michi-
gan law but the United States Constitution has
lot yet made 1t possible for State TO deprive
citizens Of their rights TO associate for business
purposes or, being thus incorporated under
State laws, TO do business In other States.
The essence of the offence which substantially
all opponents Of industrial corporations attack Is
the cessation of competition between persons or
parties uniting. But the right Of any individual
~ sell to his neghbOr cannot be denied, even If
his neiclibor is a competitor. The laws creating
corporations give them the rights which belong
10 persons Laws cannot prevent sale of their
property, with such consent Of shareholders as
their articles Of incorporation require, any more
than they can prevent farmer from selling his
crop of wheat to miller or dealer II he
takes from either in part or whole payment
contract to pay him according to the profit real
lied on the transaction, the law cannot compel
him TO sell for cash or not at all. Nor would
any such prohibition have the slightest efficacy
II constitutional, because the company or the
farmer could receive payment in cash and after
ward could expend the cash in buying sundry
shares of stock or n contract for a share OF
profits The naked truth which men need TO
face without further delay is that the laws can
not compel persons or corporations to compete.
The attempt is simply an attempt to take pri-
yate property for alleged public use without
compensation.
Men who have found that they do not wish to
compete cannot be forced to do 40. except by
virtual conflscation of an essential part OF the
property OF each. II two adjoining farmers can
not lawfully stop competing then any buyer can
take the crops Of either or both at his own prices
by waiting till such prices are reached The
question whether IL Is desirable ever to force
competition beyond the wishes OF property hold
ers has small importance II the thing is never
rossIble. The protection for the public lies IN
the fact that nothing can shut out fresh compe-
tition by anybody able 10 manufacture or pro
duce. il the price current makes competition
profitable Upon that protection. and no other'
The Nation has been relying through more than