The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-21
SMILE OF DOUGLAS
News From Washington Caused an
Expansive Grin.
ATTORNEY GENERAL Is T1CKLED
The Effect on the Stock Market Was
Very Disauieting Mt
First.

Attorney General Douglas is highly
Genral Knox that he would proceed
against the Northern Securities company
for violation of the Sherman antitrust
law.
The news was not surprise to Mr..
Douglas. When first in Washington on
the merger case, he. called on the attor-
ney general and presented the case to
him. They have since been In frequent
correspondence. Mr.. Knox was mis-
quoted in the dispatches, which repre-
sented that he would not interfere in the
matter, and on his return from Wash
ington Mr.. Douglas corrected the state
ment in o ur n al interview. Mr..
Knox at that time said he would take
UP the case should the state fail, and a
proper showing of facts be made to him.
Since that time has occurred the uneX-
pected delay in the supreme court. Mr..
Knox has gone into the facts, and has
made up his mind that the antitrust
law is being violated
Won't Interfere With States Case.
"a suit brought by the attorney gen
eral will in no way conflict with the suit
brought by the state Of Minnesota" said
Mr.. Douglas this morning. They go
side by side. l am very much pleased, of
course to see that the suit will be
brought. 1t will not jeopardize the
standing of our case before the supreme
court in any way
like to take this opportunity to correct a
mistake that good many attorneys are
making. It is often said that the gov
eminent has no power to prohibit the
making of contracts. That is In a
measure true, but not entirely. 1t is
within the power of the government to
prohibit the making of an illegal con-
tract. and a contract against public
policy is illegal. 1t is not illegal for a
man to buy stock in ordinary quantities,
but when he buys stock Of such quantity
and nature as to be against public policy,
he may be restrained. l Will just cite
two authorities: One 1 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, Hist
U. S., page SIT, in which the antitrust
act is held valid. he says:
In dealing with contracts. the constitu-
tional right Of citizen to make contracts
is not inconsistent with the existence of a
power in congress to prohibit a contract of
the nature involved in this case. 49,.
"Since then have found another opin-
ion even more explicit. 1t is in the case
Of Frisbie VS.. the United States, 1877 U. S.,
page 1855. In this opinion Justice Brewer
says:
while it. may be conceded that, gener-
ally speaking, among the inalienable
rights Of the citizen is that of the liberty
Of contract yet such liberty Is not alb
solute and universal. 1t is within the
undoubted power Of government to re-
strain some individuals from all con-
tracts, as we'll as all individuals from
some contracts 1t may deny to all the
right to contract for the purchase or sale
of lottery tickets; to the minor the right
to assume any obligations, except for the
necessaries Of existence; to the common
carrier the power to make any contract
releasing himself from negligence, and
indeed. may restrain all engaged in any
employment from any contract in the
course of that employment which is
against public policy. The possession
of this power by government in no man
ner conflicts with the proposition that,
generally speaking, every citizen has a
right freely to contract for the price of
his labor, services or property