The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-07-25

-
necessity. IN order to "unreasonablys
further TO prohibit anything which
prevents Reasonable competttion. IN
any calling or business. Combinations
OF capital as such are not denounced;
to fall under the purview Of the sec
tton they must be formed to "unreas-
onably" increase the cost. The sec
restricts competition. Its purpose "
not that there shall be no restraints
OF competition, arising from the WORK
inss Of the laws of trade. but only
that whatever Is done In trade. must
leave the Geld open to reasonable
| competition" The Indirect effects OF
fair competition, though In the end
u may result In restricting compete
fffon, by lessening the number who
compete, or. In some instances. throw
ing all the trade into the hands Of one
man are not outlawed a. going be-
yond the limits OF reasonable compe-
Of trade. has passed into "a proverb
of the law" The section intends to
preserve the right 10 engage IN It. II
4 had been intended to crdain the poll
worked upon competition, no matter
how effected In giving reign to the
law Of trade, the section would not
have used the term reasonable conn
reasonable before the word "compe-
tition," could have no other purpose
than to declare the intent that restric-
lions arising from the inevitable ef-
We're not intended to be prohibited
that the reasonable competition for
which the Constitution provided, did
not intend to free competition from
rivalry waged within the bounds OF
law. II II meant more. competition
would be impossible: since all competf-
ton. more or less. dimfnishes. restraints
terms reasonable" and Unreasonable"
were used with reference to the mean
Ing of these words. as understood and
applied in our Jurisprudence In the
reference with trade and commerce.
as distinguished from lawful rivalry.
To give the section any other meaning
would defeat Its dominant purpose to
have reasonable competition"
Section 24s7 of the Code of Alabama
sheds no light upon the question here.
without attempting any definition Of
unreasonable restraints or reasonable
ff0m and Ion, Il simply gives penal
direct or indirect" resulting from vi
olations of law. Section 1881 of the
code reads: Amy person or corpora.
ria Domestic e or foreign which shall
freedom of trade or production. control
or sale of commodity, or prosecu-
ton; management or control of any
hAhds ti6oo UT OF DubfueSHs
or which shall destroy or attempt to
destroy, competition In the manufac-
ture or sale of a commodity, shall be
guilty of q misdemeanor, and, upon
five hundred nor more than two thous-
ana dollars for each offense." 1t Will
be noticed at glance that 1t goes far
beyond the constitution which by the,
the power, inevitably negatives any
Legislative power to enact anything
contrary to the policy OF the funda-
mental law. 1t makes no distinction
able" restraints. 1t forbids amy at
tempt" to restrain the freedom OF trade
whether direct or indirect. whether
accomplished by Illegal means, or as
lawfully conducted. 1t forbids fanny
attempt" to cantrol any business, or
any attempt to destroy competition"
no matter by what means effected.
free competition IS impossible. since
all competition, howsoever lawfully
conducted, necessarily results, in a
large measure In restricting competi-
ability to compete and hampers the
practical enjoyment OF the right to
compete In many instances. When only
two are engaged in a business In a To-
ten to put the whole business in the
hands of one, thereby creating a mo-
nopoly. Yet this monopoly is the child
Of the reasonable competition" which
the constitution intends shall have full
play. According to the section, II 1t
be taken at Its word. such competition,
from its known and direct tendency.
would be forbidden. This section can
Ing of the constitution or be useful
in any way In ascertalning the mean
ing of Its terms.y II ~ means only to
forbid things the constitution forbids.
1n0k 10 affftfinc IN ~
er than to II. II 1t means more, or is
In any wise antagonistic to the consti-
tuition. II Is void. Finding no defini-
tion of the meaning of unreasonable
tion." In our constitution ana statutes,
resort must necessarily be had to the
common law: At the common law all
competition in trade conducted within
the limits of law was reasonable
competition" Mogul Steamship Co. vs..
McGregor, supra.
The control of a pursuit or trade In
locality IS not forbidden by the con-
stitution. though It be lodged in q
single hand. II that is the result OF
competition waged by lawful means.
Such a monopoly Is not an unlawful
monopoly. Contracts or agreements
between two or more persons to OBJ
tain such result or to keep up prices
are of course unlawful and unforcible.
and statutes frequently make them not
only illegal but criminal. But fercely
waged competition between rivals
within the limits OF the law, may bring
about Just such results, and the law
does not condemn them; for they are,
in the nature OF things. the inevitable
results Of the reasonable competi-
tion,' which the constitution secures
TO all alike. II as we have seen. one
Of these competing companies keeping
within lawful means. may continue TO
compete until 1t drives the other out of
business altogether and thus lawfully
secure a monopoly for itself. the ad-
vertisement in the newspapers or in
other ways OF a purpose to continue
the struggle until that result is Sc
cured. cannot make that an unlawful
nouncement would be lawful. National
Protective Association VS. Cummings.
40 N. Y. 315. The reason. of course,
Is that the doctrine has generally been
accepted that competition is worth
more 20 society than IT costs. and that
on this ground. the infliction of dam
ages Is privileged. Commonwealth VS..
Hunt, 4 Metcalf 111--134
1t has been pressed upon the court.
that while ordinarily II might not
writs, and must leave the rivals to
their remedies at law, yet that In
grievance OF this kind, court OF equi-
ty has the power and Is under duty, to
interfere by ln1unctive relief; because
IN so doing 1t would be enforcing the
policy OF the constitution and prevent
the accomplishment by competition of
an avowed and undoubted purpose. by
means fair or foul. to drive his rival
10 the wall. and thus defeat the very
reasonable competition" AS we have
seen, there are constitutional difficult
ties In the way OF suppressing the In
jury resulting either from the circu-
iation Of defamation or IF. from so; s9iici TIA
thA mower 70 Interfere nv preventive