The Green Bog
184
“As a practical rule to guide us in the administration of justice, I believe the text of the great commentator is right." Master and Servant. “Some Phases of the Law of Master and Servant: An Attempt at Rationalization." By Judge Arthur Gray Powell of the Georgia Court of Appeals. 10 Columbia Law Review 1 (Jan).
holding of corporate assets. The limitation upon ca italization will depend upon the extent 0 the national market; if no corpora tion market, this is allowed sometocompetition grow big at enough least within to
tools and inanimate instrument ities); and the nature of the relationship is such that the master must furnish the animate as well as the inanimate agencies; but, in an appreciable sense, it may be seen, the tools, the fellow servants, all the instrumentalities by which
the nation is restored. . . . "Here, then, is indicated the first series of measures in the restoration of equality: A n_y state, sincerely hostile to monopoly, ma forbid any company, foreign or domestic, to do mess within tts jurisdiction if it own the stock o£ others, or through ownership of its own stoc be servient to a monopoly, or exceed a forbidden size, and the legislation may legitimately in clude corporations already doing business in the state. Such a state would cease to create or voluntarily to foster monopoly . . . _ “The maintenance of monopo ies by certain states against the protests of sister states may be prevented by an Act of Congress, regulatwe of commerce, pro'uidin that the anti-monopoly
the work is executed, are the agencies of the
laws of a state sha
servant, necessary to his business as a laborer. Of course, as the furnisher of these agencies, the master must use ordinary care and dili
by corporations whenever they arrive at the
"The servant's business,—the execution of
the work, would be inefficiently done but for his ability to secure the co-operation of cer tain conscious animate agencies-fellow ser vants, in fine (just as he must
rocure the
gence to see that the animate are competent
and that the inanimate are not defective. But when it comes to the question of absolute responsibility for the conduct of a conscious agent, the principle of respondeat superior rests not so much upon the circumstance that .the principal contractually employed the agent, as upon the physical fact that the agent was acting in the scope of a business being performed for him who was the pro prietor of the business.
In this sense, the
ellow workmen while engaged in co~operatin with the servant in executin the details 0 the labor are agents actin in the scope of their employment and in urtherance of the servant's business;-and to this extent the
negligence of the fellow servant is to be imputed to the servant as well as the master." monopolies. “Monopolies: The Cause and the Remedy." By Charles P. Howland of the New York bar. 10 Columbia Law Review 91 (Feb.). “Artificial ine ualities have long been recog nized as one o the greatest dangers to a democracy. For this reason methods of accu mulation threatening excessive inequalities— monopolies arising out of combinations of men, private trusts for accumulation, and
pe
tuties—have long been forbidden. . . . “ e have now re aled the policy of cen turies and re-establis ed mortmain. All that is denied to individuals by limitations of nature and of public policy is now granted to corporations by law. Upon their power to possess no limit is placed. . . . _ “The Sherman Act affords no relief against size: . . . Our measures of relief must 0 straight at the cause. To revent monopo y we must restrain the consolid’ation of corporate wealth by limiting corporate size; we should altogether forbid interco rate stockholdings and should impose carefully) chosen limitations upon the amount of capitalization and the
apply to all goods owned
territorial boundary of the state and demand entry. The state legislation thus approved should forbid the obnoxious corporations to do business within the state boundaries." “Trust Regulation Today." By Gilbert Holland Montague.
Atlantic Monthly, v. 105,
p. 1 (_Ian.). “ ‘Coercion,’ ‘force,’ and ‘fraud’ are well
established terms in law. They are capable of definition and application by courts and juries to varying states of fact. . . . ‘De stroying or restricting free competition’ and the other phases above quoted, are of more recent usage.
In common speech. and as used
b the courts, they include practically every phase of coercion, force and fraud, as applied to competition. . . . It ma wellbecontended that these phrases are su ciently definite to serve in a statute providing for a criminal penalty." "The Tobacco Pools of Kentucky and Tennessee." By Anna Youngman. 18 journal of Political Economy 34 (Jan). "Until the last few years the economist has rather dogmatically assumed that the modern movement toward combination characterizes only those forms of enterprise which necessi tate the employment of large amounts of fixed capital. . . . Yet the farmer is not altogether unfamiliar with proposals to combine, nor has he always turned a deaf ear to the pooling stéhemes that have been evolved for his ben e t.
"Whether the people of Kentucky and Tennessee will submit to a recrudescence of the regime of the night-riders is matter for doubt. . . . Should the tobacco growers suc ceed, however, in maintaining their co-opera
tive selling agencies, there seems to be no reason why they should not come to a perma ment agreement with the American Tobacco Company and the other allied buying organi zations. The amalgamated associations could then present a united front to the consuming public."
