Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 086.jpg

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

86

DOES PRICE FIXING DESTROY LIBERTY?

sidered within the one case. Lord Bowen says:^[1] "This seems to assume that, apart from fraud, intimidation, molestation, or obstruction * * *, there is some natural standard of 'fairness' or 'reasonableness' (to be determined by the internal consciousness of judges and juries) beyond which competition ought not in law to go. There seems to be no authority, and I think, with submission, that there is no sufficient reason for such a proposition. It would impose a novel fetter upon trade. * * * until the present argument at the Bar it may be doubted whether shipowners or merchants were ever deemed to be bound by law to conform to some imaginary 'normal' standard. * * * To attempt to limit English competition in this way it would probably be as hopeless an endeavor as the experiment of King-

↑ Mogul Steamship Co. vs. McGregor, Id. (see page 615). The facts of this case are noteworthy. The Mogul Steamship Company were the owners of certain steamships employed in commerce between England, China and Australia. McGregor, Gow & Company, the defendants, were shipowners who organized an association for the purpose of maintaining the rate of freights in the tea trade between China and Europe, and of securing that trade to themselves by allowing a rebate of five per cent. upon all freights paid by shippers who used only the vessels of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had conspired to prevent the Mogul Company from obtaining cargoes for its steamers by bribing, coercing and threatening shippers from using them, to the end that the company would be driven out of the carrying trade from China to England and thereafter freight rates could be maintained at a point which free competition would inevitably lower. In their defence, McGregor, et al., set up that the large profits derived from the tea freights alone enabled them to keep up a regular line of communication between China and England all the year round, and that without a practical monopoly of the tea trade such uninterrupted communication must cease. It was held that the association, being formed by the defendants for the purpose of keeping the trade in their own hands, and not with the intention of ruining the trade of the plaintiffs, or through any personal malice or ill-will towards them, was not unlawful, and no action for conspiracy was maintainable. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal to the House of Lords. (See Reports 1892 A. C., page 25.)

[1] Mogul Steamship Co. vs. McGregor, Id. (see page 615). The facts of this case are noteworthy. The Mogul Steamship Company were the owners of certain steamships employed in commerce between England, China and Australia. McGregor, Gow & Company, the defendants, were shipowners who organized an association for the purpose of maintaining the rate of freights in the tea trade between China and Europe, and of securing that trade to themselves by allowing a rebate of five per cent. upon all freights paid by shippers who used only the vessels of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had conspired to prevent the Mogul Company from obtaining cargoes for its steamers by bribing, coercing and threatening shippers from using them, to the end that the company would be driven out of the carrying trade from China to England and thereafter freight rates could be maintained at a point which free competition would inevitably lower. In their defence, McGregor, et al., set up that the large profits derived from the tea freights alone enabled them to keep up a regular line of communication between China and England all the year round, and that without a practical monopoly of the tea trade such uninterrupted communication must cease. It was held that the association, being formed by the defendants for the purpose of keeping the trade in their own hands, and not with the intention of ruining the trade of the plaintiffs, or through any personal malice or ill-will towards them, was not unlawful, and no action for conspiracy was maintainable. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal to the House of Lords. (See Reports 1892 A. C., page 25.)

[1]