The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-10
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10. 1900.
MoNopoL,Es ar COMMON LAW

The Norfolk virginan-Pilot responds
TO our recent article in reply to lis cr'u-
cisms Of The Times position toward In
dustrial combinations. and in the course
of its article il refers to the view of the
matter held by the common law
The virginian-Pilot is now getting down
10 the gst of this matter, and II it viii
keep a candid attention fixed upon this
side of it, we predict that it will. in time.
change its views upon it most radically
When We speak of the common law IN
this connection we mean. really, 10 refer
to the elementary principles upon which
our institutions are founded, and al
though such text writers as Lord Coke
and Blackstone say in their commentaries
,,1,ou the common law, that the common
law condemned monopolies and agree
1nents in restraint of trade we, nevegthc-
less, say with entire confidence that there
is nothing in the elementary principles
OF our laws which is opposed to any agree
ments between men which aim, in good
lain, at the advancement of the interests
of the parties TO the agreement.
Agreements alleged to he in restraint
OF trade, have been coming before the
courts very frequently in the past hun
dred years as a concomitant of a devel-
oping civilization. And what do we find
the courts holding? They have been
growing more and more liberal in regard
10 them. under the eXisencies Of modern
commerce, until the accepted doctrine
now is that to make an agreement in re-
straint Of trade unlawful ii must put
unreasonable restraints upon it, and
that is the same thing as abandoning
the whole field.
There has been very little adjudication
OF the courts upon the subject of agree
ments claimed to constitute a monopoly.
The leading decision upon the head OF
monopolies had nothing TO do with agree
mcnts between parties TO control bus
1ness. 1t was delivered in the reign Of
Queen Elizabeth, and 1t held that the
Sovereign had no prerogativc to author
lie courtier 10 be the sole vender of
article in common use amongst the peo-
pie This is the authority always quoted
to show that the common law was op-
posed TO monopoly. but I manifestly has
more relation to our protective tariffs
than to agreements to control business
From the earliest dawn of our institu-
tons our common law has encouraged
partnerships between men, and if the
partnership is a good thing, where is 1t
said to have become bad? If partner
ship between nine men with a c:pi,al of
100000 Is a good thing, has it become
a bad thing when another member with
$4,000 additional capital is taken in?
The truth is that the dicta concerning
monopoly and restraints upon trade had
their origin in the early acts Of I'ar!ia-
Gnent. that gave expression to 1hes mar
row-minded notions of political economy
that our ancestors had a4thousand years
ago. and they are no part OF our bsnel-
cent common law al all. They are the
crude statutes of men who saw nothing
but what they understood to affect them
serves personally. and are as foreign TO
the liberal and benetcent principles of the
common law as any thing can be- We have
not space TO treat this subject fully. and
we shall. therefore. postpone further con-
sIoeration of it to another day.
i