THE LEGAL STATUS OF TRUSTS. 
EDGAR F. STRONG. 
In an able article entitled “Economics and Jurisprudence,” 1 
Prof. H. C. Adams shows that the English conception of liberty, 
which “ allows every man full control over his own acts on con¬ 
dition of complete responsibility for all that may ensue from 
them, ” is carried out in law and government, but that the failure 
to apply it to the field of industrial activity has resulted, among 
other things, in the irresponsible use of capital — the most 
effective power of the present day. The consequent manage¬ 
ment of capital for purely private ends is contrary to the spirit 
of English liberty, and it is because we have failed to so adjust 
matters as to realize responsible control over all economic agencies, 
that we are confronted with so many serious industrial problems. 
Within the last few years there has been a determined attempt 
to solve one of these problems by legislation in the public inter¬ 
est. The Federal and several of the State legislatures have en¬ 
acted laws for the purpose of repressing and punishing those 
combinations of capital known as “trusts,” 2 which have created 
so much alarm and excited the liveliest interest in the public 
mind. These laws are based on the theory that all combina¬ 
tions among producers and dealers in articles of necessity are 
contrary to public policy, and should therefore be prohibited. 
Upon this theory rests also the principle that contracts to carry 
out such combinations are void. 
Trusts have been looked upon as monopolies in restraint of 
trade, that is, as conspiracies to destroy competition, lessen pro- 
lt4 Science Economic Discussion,” New York, 1886. 
2 So called because in many instances they operate by or through a 
board of trustees. 
