The weekly examiner., 1901-08-10

and there is no doubt. absurd though the thought may seem to some of us. that the original grocer as well as the middleman of all kinds generally was for long period of time criminal in England.
 Prior to the nineteenth century, in- deed, the governing classes of England were, as they are today in the United States. even with it's broader suffrage, consumers-that is, soldiers and sailors professional men and farmers, to whom any increase either in the price of goods or of labor was economically hurtful and in whose eyes, therefore, any attempt of either capital or labor to add to its profits met with disfavor. 1t was not, therefore, until new in- dustrial order had been ushered in and {, the complexion of the English parlia- ment had been changed on the one hand from that of body of landed proprietors to that of body of manu- facturers and merchants with a world expanding trade before them and on the other until by the extension of the suffrage the workingman had become political factor in the community that the adverse legislation in England, both in regard to capital and labor, ceased
 When these events took place, which they did, in part at least, by the be- ginning of the nineteenth century. there was complete change of front, both on the part of the courts and Of parliament. The old laws of restraint were only possible in a country of a limited economic development, and when a broader field of industry and enterprise began to be opened to Eng land, as it is today beginning to be opened to the United States; when a day of big things and of vast mercan- tile enterprises and of world expand ing commerce began to dawn, the re strictions of the past seemed trivial and burdensome A young industrial giant, indeed, had been born which parliament itself could not fetter. And yet, fortunately for the laboring man. this giant was born at a time when the humane forces and interests were also developing, when the great masses of men were acquiring a voice and an influence in government and when no political party or judiciary dared or cared to give to capital free dom which it denied to labor itself. The change was brought about largely by the invention of machinery and the development of the mines of England. but above all by the expansion of her foreign trade and the growing realiza- ton of the possibility of an individual and national wealth hitherto undrearn- ed of, if only the factories and the <rRf combine unchecked by restraints. The capitalist indeed was interested not only in the removal of the restric- tions on capital itself and the abolition of the old trade guilds. but also even in the repeal of the statutes which regu- lated the rates of wages. The old trades guilds. which by royal charters had in certain trades and industries been giy-s en exclusive privileges and freedom and exemption from the faws gepeGpl lz restraining labor were abolished at the instigation of the capitalists because the capitalist desired to work his la borers for as many hours day as he pleased in times of business activity, which the rules of the guilds forbade, and also because he desired to be able to become a manufacturer and mas ter of industry by virtue of the posses sion of capital alone and not. as re- quired by the guilds. as the result of a promotion to that rank from those of apprentices and journeymen. While the statutes regulating rates of wages were abolished. 1t was largely because of the necessity for the manufactures to quickly hire large numbers of men in times of business pressure. which could only be done by the offer Of lar ger wages than those paid, them by other employers.
 The law. then. as administered by the courts in England today. is practically this-that fraud and misrepresentation, intimidation and physical obstruction or molestation or the intentional pro- curement of. a viola ton of contractuai rights are unlawful. both on the part of the capitalist and of the laborer. but that to pursue to the bitter end war of competition waged in the interest of ones own trade and with that end alone in view is not unlawful so as to be the subject of indictment or action for damages. although such an act or plan of action may be considered in re- straint of trade in such sense as 10 be void and incapable of enforcement by the courts as between the immediate parties to 1t.
 To such an extent, indeed. have the courts gone that in recent case com bination of shipowners for the purpose of controlling the entire tea trade of Canton and of the ports, on the. Hong kong river by means of the adoption of a uniform rate of charges, the boy cotting of all competitors and by re fusing to do business with persons deal ing with such competitors. as well as by a temporary reduction. of rates. for the sole purpose of driving competitors out of business. was held not to be file gal or violation of the personal rights