"The directors, officers and agents of a corporation are held to the general rule of law resting 'upon our great moral obligation to refrain from placing ourselves in relations which ordinarily excite a conflict between self-interest and integrity.' The directors and officers are the agents of the company, and while acting in that capacity for it cannot deal with themselves to the detriment of the corporation. All contracts of that character are voidable at the option of the corporation." And further he says: "A director whose personal interests are adverse to those of the corporation has no right to act as a director. As soon as he finds he has personal interests which are in conflict with those of the company he ought to resign." T. Carl Spelling, in his treatise on "The Law of Private Corporations," says of pooling arrangements: "Courts long ago exercised jurisdiction to regulate rates of _quasi_ public corporations, and on the same principle will refuse to enforce pooling contracts between railroad and gas companies. Such contracts are void as against public policy.... There is substantial harmony between the English and American definitions of monopoly, the two countries agreeing that contracts entered into by and between two or more corporations, the necessary result of whose performance will crush and destroy competition, are illegal." Upon the subject of eminent domain Mr. Spelling remarks: "That the legislature may thus select any agency it sees fit for the exercise of eminent domain, and also that it may determine what purposes shall be deemed public, are propositions too deeply rooted in the jurisprudence of this country to admit now of doubt or discussion. Making an application of this doctrine to railway operations, conceding it to be settled that these facilities for travel and commerce are a public necessity, if the legislature, reflecting the public sentiment, decide that the general benefit is better promoted by their construction through individuals or corporations than by the State itself, it would clearly be pressing a constitutional maxim to an absurd extreme if it were to be held that the public necessity should be only provided for in the way which is least consistent with the public interest.... The power of eminent domain being an inherent element of sovereignty, it cannot be divested out of the State or abridged by contract or treaty so as to bind future legislatures. Nor can the right be divested by private contract." Concerning State control of corporations the same author says: