Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-30
GOVERNMENT LOSES.
Decision in the Suit Against the Su-
gar Trust.
INTERSTATE TRADE NOT INVOLVED.
The Case Not One for a Federal
Court.
WERS OF CONGRESS

PHILADELPHIA. Pa, Jan. 80.-In the
suit brought by the government to test the
legality of the sugar trusts absorption Of
the big Philadelphia refineries. Judge But
Ter today decide in favor or the trust.
AS the case Is a test one, 1t Is believed an
appeal to the supreme court will be taken
In order that no doubt as to the legality of
the purchase of the local refineries shall
exist.
The bill charges that the American Sugar
Refining Company entered into an unlawful
and fraudulent scheme to purchase the
stock, etc., of the refineries of E. G. knight
Company. the Spreckels Sugar Refining
Company. the Franklin Sugar Refining
Company and the Delaware Sugar house of
this city, with the design of mOnopolizing
the manufacture and sale Of refined sugar
in the United States.
The material facts proved are that the
American Sugar Refining Company and the
four sugar refineries above mentioned were
incorporated under the laws Of Pennsylvania
and authorized to purchase refineries and
sell sugar. The object in purchasing the
Philadelphia refineries was to obtain a
greater influence over. more perfect control
OF the business of refining and selling sugar
In this country.
The principal questions raised, in Judge
Buffers opinion, are these:
First. Do the facts show a contract, COM
bination or conspiracy to restrain trade and
commerce, or a monopoly within the legal
Specification of these terms?
Second. Do they show such a contract,
combination or conspiracy to restrain or
monopolize trade or commerce among the
several states o. foreign nations?
g. Can the relief sought be had in this
proceeding?
Judge Butler said in part: "In the view
1 entertain, the first and third questions
need not be considered. The second must
receive q negative answer and this will
dispose of the controversy. The federal
government possesses no Jurisdiction over
.h n contracts, business or property Of indi-
viuuais within the states. except to collect
revenue for its support Its powers are de-
rived exclusively from the constitution 1t
mas none other than such as are irectly or
implicitly conferred by that instrument and
t the iatter contains no suggestion Of author
ity to intermeddle in such property rights.
congress Is empowered to regulate COM
mef',e with foreign nations and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes
IN pursuance Of this power the statute
OF 1870 was enacted and the terms EMPLOY
ed show that Congress was duly careful to
Keep within the limits of its authority. The
contracts OF the defendants. the decision
states, nave no reference and bear no rela-
ton to commerce between the states or
with foreign nations. Granting therefore
that a monopoly exists in the ownership of
such refineries and business IL does NOT con-
sutute a restriction or monopoly of inter-
state or international commerce. The latter
IS untouched and unrestrained and open
70 al VINO choose to engage in 1t.
me plaintiff contends, however that
such monopoly In refneries and refining
incidentally secures a monopoly of COM
merce among states. At present the de-
PENDANTS neither have, nor have attended
to secure such commercial MONOPOLY"
In conclusion, Judge Butler cites previous
cases or a like character, in which there
was no onence against the statute set out
AND no interference In interstate or inter-
national commerce was charged
IN view OF these facts Judge Butler dis
missed the case and places the cost on the
government.
ho
either the Circuit Court of Appeals or the
supreme Court of the United States