The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-11-20
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1900.
A DECISION ON TRUSTS.

For the past SIX OF eIght years Inc
Times has been endeavoring to explain
the elementary principles that arc at the
foundation of the industrial combinations
of the day and because The Times has
tried to make plain to the common under
standing that these combinations are the
natural and logical results of forces insep-
arably connected with an advancing and
a developing civilization. thoughtless men
have insisted upon branding The Times as
the friend of trusts and the ally of the
rich against the poor. The highest court
OF the State of New York has just made
a decision which is 4 complete affirInance
of the principles which The Times has
been explaining, and we hope that here
after our critics viii include il their de-
nunciations the law of the land as we'll as
I The Times, that punishments may be duly
meted out where they belong.
The foundation principle that The Times
has been contending for is that whatever
one man may lawfully do when acting by
himself any number of men may do when
acting together in concert; and, therefore,
that as one man may force competition
upon his rival to the point of destroying
him, number of men when acting to-
sether may equally do the same thing
but there is q qualifying principle that
acts in the case, and that is that the
combined action Of the number acting to-
Sether must be in good faith for the adj
Tancement of their own interests and not
for the purpose Of doing a wilful and ma
1ustrate: A has a prosperous hat bust
ness on Broad Street 3 and c have
perfect right to combine and set up a Eat
store next door to him, even though it is
their purpose to drive him out of the bust
ness and get possession of it and thereby
ruin him. This is every day and legitimate
competition. Bat suppose 3 and c hated
A and did this, not to secure prosperous
business for themselves, but only to ruin
A and make him a bsggar in the streets.
They would have no right to do this.
This is the sole restriction upon the right
TO combine. If the combination is in good
faith for the heneti; of the union it is ie-
climate But if it aims at doing wan
Ton and malicious injury to another it is
vicious.
The New York case, just decided. is
this: The great body OF wholesale drug
sists in the country entered into COM
5ination and applied to the manufacturers
of patent medicines TO sell to none but
themselves: TO sell 10 all at one price, and
they bound themselves to sell 20 retailers
at an advance of ten per cent only as
the manufacturers price. About ninety
per cent of all the wholesale druggists
went into the combination and the manu-
facturers all agreed to il. John D. Park
& Sons, who refused to enter the conbina-
ton. applied to the courts TO break this
combination up, and he arerred that the
druggists compelled" The manufacturers
To so into The combination, and reported
to them all dealers who did not buy under
the arrangement Who We're put upon d
'-cnt off, list, to whom the manufacturers
would sell no goods thereafter, and that
they could, therefore. buy none. This GER
tainly comes up TO the modern conception
OF the boGy called a trust us perfectly as
anything could. Eat the Court of Appeals
OF New York said ali these men acting to-
ge,her had perfect right 10 90 what they
had done. Each had right 10 do siagiy
what all were doing together, and that so
FAR as the manufacturers We're concerned,
their goods belonged to them and they
could do with them as they Pleased and
that the arrangement was no more THAI,
the conditions prescribed by them upon
which their goods could be bought, and
.5ilad q perfect right 70 prescribe those
conditions We have said from the begin
rang that this had 10 be the ultimate re-
sn.s Of the discussion, and row We repeat.
thai NE hope our critics xiii take In the
iaw Of the land when they de.!se The
Times. and lei that law bear It's fnl, share
OF the ceasnre Of our critics.
---s--=---.-==
PROSPERITY Nor CRIME.
Some OF the prophets of evil have bee,.