New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-22
RESTRICTING FREEDOM.

1t Is not quite a new discovery that human
beings are selfish. That explains the desire OF
| the farmer 10 fix at pleasure and without COM
petition the price of the wheat he has TO SELL
and the desire of the manufacturer to tx with
out competition the prices Of his cloths and
implements and the desire OF the laborer TO
fix without competition the price of his labor.
1t equally explains the desire OF each and all
TO have laws which shall prohibit other people
from liking prices without competition. When
other men do that thing 1t is a grinding mo-
nOpoy, but every man who does II considers
that he is only getting the market price for
his property. Everybody makes the market as
favorable for himself as he can, and yet holds
1t ought 20 be a penitentiary offence for others
to do the same. Such Is unregeDerate human
nature which inspires the latest Texas and
Arkansas laws against monopolies. II the
planters In their private organizations agree
upon a price for cotton, or If the workingman
in his union decides upon the wages for his
labor 1t is a different matter indeed from the
wicked effort Of monopoly to make the farm
or or the laborer pay more for jackets or boots,
sugar or whskey, freight, life insurance or
borrowed money.
Having so much of human nature in them. it
IS not surprising that the laws do not work.
Never yet has one been devised which would
clearly distinguish between orthodoxy, which
is my doXy. and heterodoxy, which Is your
doxy, or between my freedom to ask all ! can
get which is legitimate trade. and your free
dom to ask all you can get which is monopoly.
Hundreds Of laws have been laboriousy framed
and enacted only TO prove as worthless as a
last years birds nest. The difficulty with all
is that they try to limit the freedom OF the
individual to buy or to sell. The courts have
to recognize that this freedom of all alike can
not be indefinitely restricted or denied Neither
can il be constitutionally taken from some and
left unmpaired TO others. So the courts have
10 recognize a dividing line between the exer.
else of individual freedom which Is hostile to
the public welfare and that which Is not But
then comes the question, Who shall decide what
Is hostile to the public welfare?
The late Mr. Flower took part In buying q
good many wire works. That was his unques
toned right II he had bought the last one Of
them II would have been his unquestioned right
to sell the wire made by his works or not Il
sell, as he pleased. II jury Of farmers con
sidered that he demanded too much for hi,
wire fencing or his wire nails ii would remain
for the highest court to decide whether his re
fusal TO sell for less than certain prices wa
hostile to the public welfare. If so, would !
not be far more hostile 10 the public welfare t
refuse to sell wheat for the bread OF the mill
ions. or cotton for the clothing Of the millions
for less than certain prices? But the absolut
monopoly does not. in fact, exist In any bus
ness The most powerful Of all the monopole
are only able TO say that they will not SCI
except at certain price, believing that tn
other producers will get as much II they car
Then comes the difficulty of denying the free
dom Of the individual or the corporation to Sc
or not to sell at his or its pleasure.
All laws prove futile which in their essenc
deprive individuals or corporations OF that free
dom which every individual knows that h
wants for himself and claims as bis right Tn
rights Of corporations to buy or to sell NIGH
be restricted by the authority which gives eac
corporation Its franchise. But so long as tbos
franchises are given by the various States the
win be limited only as the different States Sc
at, and when one State attacks the right Q
Others to create corporations with franchise
lof one sort or another. It is, In fact. demandln
That the power to grant all franchises shall b
Fhken from all the States and exercised by tn