The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-02-21
GOVERNOR IS HAPPY
VAN SAINT BEAMS WITH PLEAsURE,
ON ATTORNEY GENERAL
KNOWS ACTION
he SAYS IT WAS EXPECTED
Attorney General Douglas Also
Gives Out Statement Declaring
That States Case Will Not
Be fnterfered with.

GOV. Van SAINT and Attorney General
Douglas yesterday expressed great pleas
ure and satisfaction at the news from
Washington that the Attorney General
would institute proceedings against the
Northern Securities company. Gov. Van
SAINT gave out the Following signed state
ment:
I'VE expected this action by the attor.
ney general OF the United States would
pc taken. He has never intinated that
ne rs, could not or would not proceed against
the contrary, said chat he would examine
the Facts, and if the law was being yio-
lated he would proceed.
when Attorney General Douglas, Mr..
MUM and Gen. Wilson were first in
washington they had long conference
with Attorney General Knox, and Attor-
ney General Douglas and Mr.. Mum re-
NAMED over after the argument for
further conference with him to arrange
Tor submitting testimony to him.
Ot course, we are delighted with this
declslon, and the people of this state and
the Northwest can rest assured that their
rights will be protected and the law vim,
dicated."
The attorney general said:
"A suit brought by the attorney gen
eral Will i'll no way conflict with the suit
brought by the state of Minnesota They
go side by side. l am vry much pleased
or course to see that the suit win be
brought. It will not jeopardize the stand
ing Of our case before the supreme court
in any way.
II would like to take this opportunity
to correct a mistake that good many
attorneys are making. 1t is often said
that the government has no power to
prohibit the making of contracts That
IS in measure true, but not entirely It
~ W1th1n the power Of the government to
prohibit the making of an illegal con-
tract, and contract against public poll
9 Il. 4,.OAs
to buy stock in ordinary quantities, but
wren he buys stock Of such quantity and
nature as to be against public policy he
may be restrained. I will Just cite two
autnofltleS: Qne l gave at the recent
hearing before the supreme court. in re-
ply to a question. In the opinion given
by Justice Peckham, in the United States
vs. The Joint Traffic Association, III Z.
>, page 51, iii which the antitrust act is
held valid, he says,
In dealing with contracts the con-
sdtutional right ola citizen to make con-
tracts is not inconsistent with the exist
ence OF q power In congress to prohibit
contract of THE nature involved in this
case
Since then / have found another .opin-
ion even more explicit 1t is in the case
of Frisbie VS. The United States. Isl d.
s.. page 165. aInA4 this opinion Justice
Brewer says: ,e~
while it may be conceded that. gen
orally speaking among the inaIienaF1le
rights Of the citizen. is that of the liberty
of contract, yet such liberty is not abso-
lutte and universal. It is within the un-
doubted power of government to restrain
some individuals from all contracts. as
we'll as all individuals 1t may deny to
all the right to contract for the pJIreha Sc
or sale of lottery tickets; TO the minor
the right to assume any obligations ex-
cept for the necessaries Of existence; to
the common carrier the power to make
any contract releasing himself from snegli-
gence, and, indeed, may restrain all en-
gagged in any employment from any con-
tract ia the course. of that employment
watch is against public policy. The pos
session of this power by government in
no manner conflicts with the proposition
that, generally speaking, every citizen
has a right freely to contract for the
price OF his 1aborje services or proper