Relation of Trusts to the Common Law. 139 
they are not only lawful, but laudable. Carried beyond these 
imits, they are liable to become dangerous agencies for wrong 
and oppression. Beyond what limits these associations or com¬ 
binations cannot go without interfering with the legal rights of 
others, is the problem which, in various phases, the courts will 
doubtless be frequently called to pass upon. ” “ What one man 
may lawfully do singly, two or more may lawfully agree to do 
jointly. Combination in itself does not render such conduct ac¬ 
tionable. ” 
In conclusion, the position of the trust before the common 
law may be briefly summarized as follows: Partnerships be¬ 
tween corporations and corporations controlling other corpora¬ 
tions violate the law of corporations and are therefore illegal. 
A corporation that buys out other corporations is illegal only 
when it is contrary to public policy, that is when the commodity 
monopolized is an article of common necessity or the service 
rendered is of a quasi-public character; and provided that the 
combination is formed for the distinct purpose of fleecing the 
public or employs improper and unlawful methods in dealing 
with customers and competitors. The numerous decisions to 
which reference has been made, show that the trust when 
brought into court finds no favor under the common law. While 
all attempts to fasten criminal punishment on the promoters of 
monopolies has failed, yet the civil courts have been generally 
successful. This is because their methods require less evidence 
and are more pliable in procedure. It is easier to dissolve a 
corporation than to convict and punish promoters of monopoly. 
As Governor Nelson, of Minnesota, said at the anti-trust con¬ 
vention held in Chicago in June, 1893: “The methods and ways 
under which trusts and combinations are carried on are so vari¬ 
ous, intricate, secret, refined, and so involved that the courts, 
as in cases of fraud and usury, have declined to define, except in 
general terms, the transactions, agreements, and arrangements 
which are inhibited and odious to the law. But while the com¬ 
mon law holds such contracts to be illegal, it fails to punish 
them as crimes, and furnishes insufficient and dilatory relief 
even in civil cases. ” 
It is doubtful whether any permanent result whatever is at- 
