New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-09
PROGRESS IN THE COURTS.

The Supreme Courts decision hold
ing that q conspiracy TO corner cotton
is crime forbidden by the Sherman
act is an impressive illustration of the
evolution of law. The Sherman act
has been on the statute books for al
most q quarter Of a century. The pro-
visions which are now declared Ell
fective to punish cOrnering have been
in II all the time Likewise in nearly
every state of the Union the old COM
mon law prohibitions which in ancient
times would have stopped any attempt
10 corner the food of an English VII
LACE were still part Of the law. Yet
year after year the spectators on the
produce exchanges went on trying TO
corner wheat. cotton and other articles
Of necessity. Great hardship was
caused Indignation would grow hot.
Moraists would say that some way
ought TO he found to punish such oper-
ators. Now and then some ruined folk
would have liked to lynch them. But
on the whole. they were accepted as
necessary evil. like death and taxes.
During all that time the community
itself was unaware Of the instrument
M its hand to stop the evil. 1t had not
read I'm the Sherman law any such
prohibition. and ii had forgotten its
old common law as operative III the
states. So no proceedings were taken
p,rsa "
been taken the decision rendered now
would not have been reached. If so.
ft would have been for the same rea-
son that the community in general did
not think such speculation unlawful
The Judges would have been rejecting
She prevailing economic philosophy oil
thcir time if they had dismissed Il com
plaint against corncring. ms i shown
IL thc fact that no such complaint
VA. made i'm spite Of the moral IN
di.uation over corners. The fact Is
,lat the IGi<Sc: fGiIt theories OF the
Time had turned mems minds away
rrrm legal control of such business
a.u>c>. Those abuses were supposed
ta cure themselves under the stress Of
.ompetitiOn and free opportunity.
BEFORE modern transportation meth
.lS were invented an English town
was dependent ON its local food sup
ply. and the law had To protect the
rcoplc from the cornering Of that linn
tied store. In the last century there
,eemcd 10 he no need Of such protec-
lion. with the market so extended that
the play Of natural supply and demand
could not be greatly affected by a
single speculation. Ii is only with the
new Capitalization Of business that the
old dangers have again seemed to he
vital 10 n whole community and not
merely the risks Of rival spectators.
Then we find the law contains safe
guards as of old.
Perhaps the courts are "reactionary
in that they do not go ahead OF pubic
opinion in reading the law by the light
of new or revived economic concep-
lions. In fact, they are generally be-
hind advanced thought on the subject.
But they generally reflect the average
intelligent view. and make progress
with 1t. When the great body of opin-
ion has decided that certain measure
Of light or air is needed by worker
or n tenement house dweller, GER
tain standard Of plumbing is required
for decent living. certain limitation
Of hours is essential TO public welfare,
or n certain restraint on speculation
necessary TO prevent monopoly, the
courts read the laws governing those
subjects IN the light Of such convic-
lions. though few years before they
might have thought such standards ex-
irene and unreasonable, as, indeed,
they might have been in view of COM
mon knowledge and common practice
That Is the natural evolution Of law.
and. though not fast enough for the
impatient. il does in reasonable time
make the courts the instrument OF the
sober sense of the community.