Time: Wed Dec 03 12:57:57 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM MONOPOLIES (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > > "Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary > to the genius of a free State and ought not > to be allowed."/1/ > > >The below is excerpted from > >The Intended Significance of the Fourteenth Amendment >by Chester James Antieau (1997), at pages 320-321: > >THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM MONOPOLIES > > American colonists had suffered economically at the hands of monopolies >granted by the British Crown and throughout the new Republic it was >generally vowed that constitutional protection against monopolies was >necessary for others to be free. The North Carolina Constitution is >representative. It provided: "Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to >the genius of a free State and ought not to be allowed."/1/ > > In 1866-8, as the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified, it was >known that American courts, with and without such constitutional clauses, >had recognized a duty to protect free people from monopolists. >Illustratively, the North Carolina Court in 1855 had held unconstitutional >a legislative act giving one individual a grant of an exclusive right to >erect a bridge at a fixed location, and ordaining that no one else should >ever be given power to erect a bridge on that stream within six miles./2/ >The following year, the Connecticut Supreme Court voided a legislative act >giving one corporation an exclusive right to lay gas pipes under the >streets of a city. Said this Court: "The whole theory of a free people is >opposed to such grants."/3/ > > In 1866 the Illinois Supreme Court annulled a legislative act which gave a >monopoly to owners of a single slaughtering plant in Chicago. The Illinois >Court remarked that the act "impairs the rights of all other persons, and >cuts them off from a share in not only a legal, but a necessary business." >This, concluded the Court, was contrary to a basic concept of America law, >"the principle of equality of rights."/4/ There were other comparable >rulings before 1868, and it is safe to conclude from the foregoing judicial >authority and the common constitutional clauses,/5/ that Americans deemed >fundamental their right to be free from monopolies, a right particularly >suited to be protected by the Equal Protection Clause. > >ENDNOTES > >/1/ - North Carolina Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, 23. > >/2/ - McRee v. Wilimgton & Raleigh Rail Co. (1855) 47 N.C. 186. > >/3/ - Norwich Gas Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas Co. (1856) 25 Conn. 19, 38. > >/4/ - City of Chicago v. Rumpff (1866) 45 I11.90, 97. > >/5/ - E.g., Connecticut Constitution of 1818, Art. I, Sec. 1; Tennessee >Constitution of 1834, Art. I, Sec. 22; Oregon Constitution of 1857, Art. I, >Sec. 21; Ohio Constitution of 1851, Art. I, Sec. 2; Indiana Constitution of >1851, Art. I, Sec. 23; Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Part. I, Art. >VI; North Carolina Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, No. 23; >Arkansas Constitution of 1865, Art. II, 19, and Florida Constitution of >1865, Art I, 23. These were all States that effectuated the Fourteenth >Amendment by ratification. > > ### > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail