The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-05
By John e. HUMPHREYS.

but that which doe. no. belong 70 COM
merce is within the Jurisdiction OF the
police power % the state"
IN support OF !.s decision the court cited:
Ssboons rs. Ogden. 8 Wheat. !, 30. Brown
rs Maryland. y Wheat AZ as. Tn. La
cen.e Cases. How. tss. Mobi!. Co vs..
kimbail. io@ T.. s. SCI bowman -. Rail
way @. Is L. g. 50: I<!sy VS.. Hardin,
10 I S. 100. Ia re Ranrer. $40 l.. S.
54s-s..55
Police Power of state.
The power 10 suppress monopol!es within
state is within the police power OF the
state
Section i6 OF Tiedmans Limitations OF
Police Power.
American Digest. Century ed, volume 10
pages iis5-ls5s. Ii is said:
The police power OF the state is that
inherent and pienary power in the state
which enables II TO prohibit all things
huruul 10 the comfort. safety and wei
fare ~ society The exercise az this pow
az Is subject TO constitutional limitations"
Corporations. as well individuals.
possess all their rights subject TO the gen
ersl police powers OF the state and are
not privileged class In that respsct"
SoTtn"es,ern Fer,ii1nk Co. VI Village
OF Hyde Park, 20 Ills s3s
Patterson We State Of Kentucky 81 L. s.,
Barber Va Connolly. iia U. s.. n.
The police power of the state. when
sage or laws for the protection o. life.
liberty and property, and for the general
welfare, has no limitations or restrictions
ton" SUI" - are '0"''i III '"e c0nS'''u-
Hawthorn rs. People 100 Ills, a2
United States -. knlgh, Co. ib Supreme
C2ur: Reporter: a
In the case Of Santa Clara Val NJ g. l..
Co - Hayes. decided by the supreme
court Of California. Is Paciao Reporter.
3sl. IL Is said:
a combination between all the lumber
manufacturers at q certain place limiting
the amount produced and Increasing tho
price, Is void and unenfcrceabIe IN any
part"
In the case % Coke Co VS. Coke Co
decided by the supreme court of Illinois.
reported in II " r. Rep. ls9, II is said:
"A contract between two gas companies
each OF which ia authorized 70 supply
gas throughout the entire city OF Chicago.
whereby they mutually agree not 70 corn
pete with each other In the sale OF gas
within certain districts Of the city. is IL
legal and void
To the same effect is the case Of People
~ Refining Co. 7 y. X. Supp. 4os. In
which Il Is held:
An Arrangement to bring about the
combination Of all the firms ana corpora
lions engaged in sugar refining In the
United states. and place their affairs IN
the hands OF a board which Is 10 have
control OF the business plainly contam-
plates the removal Of competition. and
the enhancement Of prices OF a necessary
Of life, and IS unlawful
In 13o Ills. 2ss People VS.. Chicago Gas
Trust Co. {; is decided,
"A corporation cannot be formed 20
purchase and hold or sell tho cap!tal stock
Of any gas or electric company in Chicago
or elsewhere IN 1lHrois the object Of such
CORPORATION. as tending To create 4 mo-
nopoiy. not being a lawful purpose"
.~,,,rt
York. in the case q People vs.. North Riv-
er Sugar Refining Company. - n T.. s3i.
among other things decided
Where a corporation enters into a.
partnership Of Independent corporal tons
through the medium Of a trust. disregard
Ing all statutory restraints as TO the con-
Foiidaticn 81 corporations. II is guilty Of
such "A violation OF its charter. and such
failure TO perform IA corporate duties. as
renders II liable 10 dissolution"
The supreme court az the state ~ WASH
ington. In The Gaze Of Denny Hotel Com
pauy VS.. SChram. Wash t3l. decided
that one corporation organized under
the laws OF the state OF Washington could
not subscribe 10 the capital stock OF an
other corporation"
In quoting from authority the court says:
A corporation cannot In the absence %
express statutory authority. become an in
corpCratnr 10y subscribing for shares In q
new corporation, nor can II 90 this indi-
rectiy through persons acting as lis agents
or tools
The court. after adopting the above quo
tatton. uses this language:
This (; seems - rs. for manifest and
manifold reasons. is IN accoriance with
public policy ana We therefore decide that
under the existing laws ~ this state one
corporation cannot subscribe 10 the capita
stock of another corporation
In lsaa statute was enacted IA The stata
Of New Jersey declaring ;hat It Should be
lawful Cor any corporation az the state o..
New Jersey 20 purchase. hold ana sell the
stock or bends ~ any other corporation in
the same manner 80 an individual mis ht
DO Prior 10 the time ~ me enactment 81
the statute in tho state Of New Jersey *
eas illegal foT corporations "a combine 20
form large combination Of cor
reaFRtions but since the enactment OF 80
statute in New JERSEY numbers of trusts
ard muncpoiistc corporations have been
formed under the New Jersey laws The
ststuto 81 New Jersey permits corpora
tions 10 re organized in re STATE % New
Jersey !or ire purpose - acquiring ire
stock ~ ether companies 81 similar char
acter and 20 control thtir property aud
business ana bring about under the form
of corporate oNuersAtr the great cowoina-
lions which when purchased hy means <
contrasts have been Af .afe3 1a other
states 80 We IN restrain. ~ traio ao3 cou-
;rary "a ruhlic policy.
pu re sth lay 90 Ja'y. 1898 tn re css-
~ trenton f'oftertes Company - o.v-
I,nai.; - a.. .he supreme co.rt - he state
~ NV Jets-N decided ~ crss:-'3.ne tHe
statute tha9 tx Vas valid. IS Atlantic Re
porter. - thus
'J'nler oar liberal ce7,Qra.lrr laws.
ca-gorstt.ns UBy he formed 81 engage tu
ana larry o0 a ''De<t every ,.3f ri,s j.
manufacture yr trnft Thrv arr e-eut "a
cred "a ag49l-e property a:t t9e r.utfai
gf o-Ser corpora .tors ALf> y 1jCa cavT.Es-1-
tisas So under these brood ir& <sttt =
grants Cannot hr pron>..ic >e. ~ ths - .
= be rep4Easnt to pGr.ic ro1-y R3e teA~
issafsve graHfs = power 1S th~ character
ana urais * paa.tc GnHrv 81 t-2t REGARD.
\ corporation thus eDtI~a@rs-t tc @0s. s-"
- al carry oa a certain manufacture u.as
BISHOP kOzLOWSKI