Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-05-19

mat the eject OF the contracts
aimed at is TO enable men who
form combinations, where there are actual
transactions, to reap large profits, and this
is an obstruction of commerce. They lock
up the produce of the country and hold it
for the time when the largest return can
be had, and this not only on fictitious
trades, but on the article itself when they
put il on the market Mr.. Morgan replied:
THAT is where they make an actual pur-
chase; that is in the nature of a trust"
Mr.. Enloe, however, held trust" TO be
entirely different. Mr. Morgan. inter
rupting, stated case where a number of
men combine to buy up all of product
and divide it; that he believed could be
reached. But if one bets on thing, as
on a race to be run, how could such
practice be reached?" Mr.. Enloe replied
that man is presumed to intend the
natural consequences of his act. If the
contracts do withhold products and OBJ
struct commerce, then it must be held that
such was the intention. Being asked how
it was possible for anyone to know the in
tention Of GA" if he goes to a market
and buys a product to be delivered at a
time certain, Mr.. Enloe was driven to say
that the fact that the party did not need
the product in his business would be sufii-
Gent evidence that he was buying on spec
ulation. The question would thus become
one for the Courts and for jury.
Mr.. Morgan, upon this admission, while
announcing himself as an enemy of the
evil complained OF, returned to the attack:
"Then if make a purchase with the inten-
ton of having it delivered, is there any power
within the Congress of the United States. con-
ferred by the Constitution, to interfere in such
manner and form by national legislation in re-
gard to the contract
"No, sir"
Then If the same contract is made and in
tend in good faith that it shall be delivered.
and come to you, from whom have purchased
it, and say that | do not care anything about
this delivery, and say that cotton has gone up
cent pound, and that you can pay me 81 900 to
cover the difference and we will let the thing
go, will that take it out of the rule? How
would it apply to such q case as this p
- presume II YOU nuQ the OIlSlIdl
of using the cotton, and you bought it, and alter
wards found you could not use 1t and wanted to
make a settlement, you could settle at the mar
ket price"
! reached by national legislation OF any kind.
Does not that class of legislation appertain alb
solutely to the States and It IS rot outside the
contemplated scheme of the Constitution OF the
United States?
so far as the question of morals is concerned
you and l agree. l am talking about the ques-
ton of the effect upon the commerce OF the
country of these large combinations locking up
the produce of the country"
That is the particular point we are driving
at. and the point we want information upon.
There is no power in a State to reach the
evil, and it can be reached, if at all, only by
power as comprehensive as the commerce OF
the county,"
a suppose the State of Tennessee could pass
a law that any man making purchase, or 60
ing through the form of making purchase, in
tending at the same time not 10 make deliy-
cry, of cotton or any other produce upon In,
sent 10 the penitentiary. Has 1t not that power
II presume she has.
a. Has the Congress of the United States any
1.-The Congress of the United States would not
have any such power affecting the question of
morals, that is, treated as question OF morals;
but am referring to the question of contract
as it affects interstate commerce. am talking
about this thing having grown up as an unna-
tural adjunct to commercial contracts into such
magnitude tnat lnter1efes Will aUQ
the commerce between the different States, and
between this country and foreign countries"
Chow can it interfere with commerce be-
tween the States, if commerce is an interchange
of products and transportation as defined in the
books, when it never contemplated any ex-
change of products or anything in connection
with it except to the prices going up or
down.
If the contracts enable the dealers to lock
up the produce after depressing the price to get
the product ont of the hands of the producer
for less than its real value and holding it until
necessity conIpels the consumer TO buy at more
than its real worth all the time selling and
buying, dealing with people who have nothing
10 deliver, and expect nothing to be delivered,
and in the end reaping greater profit from
these fictitious transactions than from the real,
as l understand it, that constitutes an obstruc-
ton to commerce"
We have thus presented the most of the
interesting debate, which is sufficiently
suggestive of the nice constitutional ques-
tions involved. 1t is clear that Mr.. Enloes
definitions cut so close to the quick of the
question as to the constitutional power of
Congress in the matter, that no such bill
as that considered will pass, however meri-
torious its purpose.