The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-01-22
Important Decision Rendered Yesterday
by the United States Supreme Court,
The SUPPRESSION OF MONOPOLY.
The f. G. Knight, the American and Other
Sugar Refining Companies Win Their
Case-Justice Harlan Dissents.

|
in respect of the operations of the Suga
Trust, was decided in the Supreme Cour
Of the United States to-day adversely I
the contentious of the Government. Tn
suit was begun in the Circuit Court 70
the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, an,
was brought. in brief, to compel the de
fendant companies, the American Suga
Refining Company, the T.. c. knigh
Company, the Franklin Sugar Company
the Spreckels Sugar Refining Compan,
and the Delaware Sugar House. to cance
the contracts by which the stock
OF the four last-named corpora
tions were sold TO the Ameri
can Company through John II
Searles, Jr., in exchange for American
| Company stock, and that their severa
stocks be returned to them, on the grounC
that the transaction was in violation OF
the act of July 2, 1880, and that it effect
ed combination III restraint OF inter
| state commerce.
| The Circuit Court dismissed the bill
and the Court of Appeals affirmed that
| decision. Thereupon the United States
| prosecuted its appeal to the Supreme
| Court of the United States. Chief JUS
| tice Fuller announced the opinion and
| decision of the court.
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
After discussing the legal meaning and
effect of the term monopoly" the opin-
ion proceeds: Tine fundamental Ques-
ton is whether, conceding that the eX-
istence of a monopoly in manufacture is
established by the evidence, that monopo-
ly can be directly suppressed under the
act OF Congress in the mode attempted
by this bill"
"The Constitution does not provide"
the Chief Justice said. that Interstate
commerce shall be Free but Icy the grant
Of this exclusive power to regulate IT, II
was left free, except as Congress might
impose restraints Therefore, II has
been determined that the failure of Con-
gress to exercise this exclusive power in
any case is an expression OF its VIII that
the subject shall be free from restrictions
or impositons upon it by the several
States, and if law passed by State
in the exercise of its ACKNOWLEDGED pow
ers comes into conflict with that WILL the
Congress and the State cannot occupy the
position Of equal opposing soVereisntles,
because the Constitution declares its SUI
uremacv. and that of the laws passed In
pursuance thereof; and that which Is not
supreme must yield to that which is SUI
preme"
MONOPOLY OVER A NECESSITY.
Continuing the opinion said:
THE argument is that the power TO
control the manufacture of refined sugar
is a monopoly over necessity of life,
to the enjoyment of which by large
part of the population Of the United
States interstate commerce is ndispensi-
Gle and that, therefore, the General Gov
ernment, in the exercise Of the power 10
regulate commerce, may Tepress sucn mo-
Il. ha. inc fnIH-
ments which have created it. But this ar
gument cannot be confined to necessarIes
of life merely, and must include all ar
ticles OF general consumption Doubtless
the power to control the manufacture OF
a given thing involves in a certain sense
the control of its disposition, but this Is
the secondary and not the primary sense;
and although the exercise of that power
may result in bringing the operation of
commerce into play, it does not control It,
and affects II only incidentally and di-
rectly. Commerce succeeds to manutac-
ture and is not "a part Of 1t. The power 10 |
regulate commerce is the power to pre- |
scribe the rule by which commerce shall |
be governed, and is a power Independent |
IF the power TO suppress monopoly. But |
L may operate in repression OF monopoly |
whenever that comes within the rules by |
which commerce is governed, or whenever /
he transaction is Itself a monopoly Of
commerce.
1T is vital that the independence of
the commercial power and of the police
power and the delimitation between them,
however, sometimes perpleXing, should al
Ways be recognized and observed, for
while the one furnishes the strongest
bond Of union, the other is essential 10
the preservation OF the autonomy OF the
states, as required by our dual form or
and acknowledged evils,
however pressing and urgent they may
ppear to be, had better be borne than the
isk be run, in the effort to suppress
hem, of more serious consequences by
'esort to expedients of even doubtfud
,onstitutionality.
THE ACTS OF CONGRESS.
at was in the light OF well settled
principles that the act of July 2, 1880. was
ramed. Congress did not attempt thereby
o assert the power TO deal with monop-
by directly as such, or TO limit ana re-
strict the rights of corporations created
" the States or the citizens of the
states in he\acquisition, control or dis
position of property, or to regulate or
prescribe the price or prices at which
uch property or the products thereof
hould be sold, or to make criminal the
cts of persons in the acquisition ana
ontrol of property which the States
f their residence or creation sanctioned
permitted.
aside from the provisions applicable
ere Congress might exercise municipal
over: what the law struck al was COM
nations. contracts and copspracies 10
onopoliZe trade and commerce among
lie several States or with foreign ma
ons; but the contracts and acts OF the ,
,feIdants are made exclusively TO the | !
.ouisition of the Philadelphia refineries
I'd the business OF sugar refining in q
ennsylvania, and bore no direct relation I
commerce between the States or with a
'reign ations. :
'"rhe object was manifestly private gain
the manufacture OF a commodity. but :
II through the control of interstate or | q
reign commerce 1t is true that the I
II alleged that the products of these Il
fineries were sold among the several i
ates, and that all the companies were )
gagged in trade or commerce with the
veral States and with foreign nations,
1t this was 10 more than 10 say that
ade and commerce served manufacture
fulfil its function.
There was nothing In the proofs to indi- !
tie any intention TO put a restraint upon =
ade or commerce, and the fact, as we | I;
we seen, that trade or commerce might I,
indirectly affected, was not enough | ii
entitie complainants TO a decree. The | d
btect matter OF the sale was shares
manufacturing stock, and the relief
nght was the surrender OF property
hich had already ppsed, and the sup II
ession OF the alleged monopoly In manu- b
cture by the restoration OF the status "
20 before the transfers yet the act OF :,
NIL ha