134 Strong—The Legal Status of Trusts. 
corporation, otherwise it could go into a business entirely dif¬ 
ferent from that allowed to it by its charter. The proceedings in 
the case just cited were not to oust the company from the power 
of making and selling gas, but of the power of buying up the 
stocks of other similar corporations. It is to be noted that this 
Illinois statute has been repealed, and the recent trend of legis¬ 
lative action has been towards limiting rather than enlarging 
the powers of corporations. 
III. The form of combination to which the least legal objection 
can be urged is the one known as the Monopolistic Corporation. 
This is the form now generally adopted in forming trusts. In 
this case the trust is formed by the purchase on the part of the 
new corporation of the entire property, machinery, stock in trade, 
and good-will of all, or the larger number, of the corporations 
and firms engaged in that particular line of business. The Dia¬ 
mond Match Company is an illustration of this form of trust. 
Against combinations of this character, the ground of action 
has been that they are contrary to public policy, because they 
create monopolies, and, as previously stated, this objection ap¬ 
plies equally to the trusts already described. The law’s con¬ 
demnation of monopolies dates back to the time of Queen Eliza¬ 
beth, 11 and it has been settled almost as long that contracts or 
combinations of the producers or dealers in staple commodities 
of prime necessity to the people, to restrict or monopolize their 
supply or enhance their price, pooling contracts or combinations 
between such producers or dealers to divide their profits in cer¬ 
tain fixed proportions, and pooling contracts or combinations be¬ 
tween competing common carriers, are illegal restraints of trade, 
and are void. 
It is obvious that this principle of law and the statutes against 
regrating 12 long ante-dated the formation of trusts, and were 
not directed against any such mischief as their citation in anti¬ 
trust arguments assumes, but to corners and pools. Nor do the 
decisions apply except by analogy. Nevertheless the principle 
11 Case of the Monopolies, 1602,11 Coke 85. 
12 « Every practice or device, by act, conspiracy, words, or news, to 
enhance the price of victuals or other merchandise.” Coke 3d. Inst. 
196- 1 Russell, Crimes 169. From Bouvier’s Diet. II, page 432. 
