The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-06-09

The supreme court Of the state of In
which 10 Of considerable significance,
especially a. It follows 30 soon upon
that rendered by the Missouri court up-
holding the law which forbids the col.
lection Of q debt by a trust. In each
case somewhat novel presentation OF
case law II made. and It would not
be prudent to accept without question
an application of that decision too
broadly. We do not believe that trusts
can be maintained; We believe that they
are the work OF Ingenious promoters.
and that popular craze IL being taken
advantage Of by schemers whose object
IL not to permanently increase prices,
but to sell stock on the pretense that
the higher prices viii give increased and
permanent profits.
The Indiana court lays down the prin-
ciple that II the act OF a corporation
complained OF, by Its results. shall re-
strict or stifie competition. the law will
regard such an act as incompatible with
public policy.
In the case upon which the opinion
rests the Judge who wrote the decision
says that when the state seeks to de-
stroy the life OF an incorporated body
II Is expected to show some grave mis-
conduct, some act at least by which It
has offended the law Of it's creation, or
something material which tends to pro-
duce injury to the public ana not mere
ly which affects only private interests
for which other adequate remedies are
provided. Where. however, the facts
disclose that a corporation has failed in
the discharge OF its corporate duties by
uniting with others In carrying out an
agreement. the performance Of which IL
detrimental or Injurious to the public.
1t thereby may be said to offend against
the law OF its creation. and consequently
to forfeit its rights to its franchises.
In general way this seems like a
very good distinction to define. The
right to incorporate IL a grant made by
the people through It's laws. and for the
presumed purpose OF furtherine public
interests II IL out Of the question that
a community should voluntarily place
in the hands OF privileged few the
power to work an injury upon their cre-
ator. When. therefore. q corporation
perverts the purpose OF Its being and
seeks to cause an injury to the public
reasonable verdict that It has offended
against the law OF It's creation and Is
liable to forfeit its opportunities for do
ing further evil.
one good effect Of the law will be to
act as a warning to all corporations
When they a,temp. to raise prices. and
81 squeeze out OF the public all they
can. they are not unlike individuals
The motive Is the same. TO make all
they can. but the opportunities are
greater. because competition is more re-
stricted Therefore. II becomes nsces-
sary 10 resort TO other means OF defense
than that az competition The evil viii
correct itself. in the main: II IL like those
epsdemlcs Of insurance companies and
investment companies and mining COM
raniss. which have their day and DO far
less harm 10 the general public than 10
Investors who are foolish enough 10 buy
the stock There are laws against the
selling 90 coanterfes. money. hu, TIE
hest preventive % profits by the sale ~
green goods is fer the public 10 be on
Us guard and refuse 20 buy them