The sun., 1895-01-22
THE SUGAR TRUST WINS.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME CoURT
nv the KNI0HT COMPANY CASE.

The Court Holds that II Z. Not Cou,-
binstiou In Restrains OF Inter-Stnte
Commerce snd Z. Not A,erabis to the
Ian Gives = vigorous Dis.entine Opinion.
wAsHINoToN. Jan. 2l.-The important case OF
| the United States vs. T.. G. Knight Company ct
al. appealed from the Court OF Appeals for the
Third Circuit involving the constitutonalty
and validity OF the Sherman Antitrust law ~
| In respect OF the operations OF tho Sugar Trust,
vas decided In the Supreme Court Of the United
States to-day adversely to tho contentious Of the
Government. Tho suit was begun in the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District OF Pennsylvania,
| and was brought TO compel the defendant COM
| panies-tho American Sugar Refining Company,
| the r.. G.. Knight Company. the Franklin Sugar
| Company, the Sprockels Sugar Refining Com
| pnny, and the Delaware Sugar House to
cancel the contracts by which tho stocks
| OF the last four named corporations
were sold to the American Company
through John L. Searles, Jr.. in exchange for
American Company stock, on the ground that
| the transaction was in violation of the act OF
July 2, 800, and that II effected a combination
| in restraint of Interstate 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
| Justice Fuller announced the opinion and de-
| csion of the court. After discussing the legal
| meaning and effect OF the term monopoly" the
| opinion proceeds:
"The fundamental question is whether. con-
| ceding that the existence OF monopoly In man
| ufacture is established by the evidence, that
monopoly 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 inter State commerce
shall be free, but by the grant OF this exclusive
power to regulate it 1t was left free except as
| Congress might impose restraints. Therefore
| 1t has been determined that the fault OF Con-
| gress to exercise this exclusive power in any
case is an expression of its will that the subject
| shall be free from restrictions impositions
upon 1t by the several States. and IL law passed
by State, in the exercise OF its acknowledged
powers, comes into conflict with that will, the
| Congress and the State cannot occupy the pcsi-
tion of equal opposing sovereignties, because
| the Constitution declares its supremacy and
| that of the laws passed in pursuance thereof;
| and that wi hich ia not supreme must yield to
| that which is supreme.
THE argument is that the power to control
the manufacture OF refined sugar Is monopoly
which by a large part OF the population of the
| United states Interstate commerce Is indispen-
| SABLE, ana tnat. therefore,. tHe general bOVtrn-
ment. in the exercise of the power to regulate
| commerce. may repress such monopoly directly
and set aside the instruments which have
| created II. But this argument cannot be con-
| fined to necessaries of life merely, and must in
| cLde all articles of general consumption. 1t Is
| vital that the Independence of the commercial
| power and of the police power. and the deimita-
tions between them, should always be recognized
| and observed
:" 1t was In the light of well-settled principles
| that the act Of July >, 1890. was framed. Con-
grsss dd not attempt thereby to assert & the
or to limit and restrict the rights of corporations
created by the States in the acquisition, control
prescribe the price at which such property or
the products thereof should be sold: or TO make
and control OF property WHICH the States OF
their residence sanctioned. What the law
snd to fSGe
with foreign nations; but the contracts and acts
of the defendants related exclusively to
the acquisition OF the Philadelphia refneries
ard the business Of sugar refining in Pennsyl-
yania, and bore no direct, relation to commerce
between the States or with foreign nations. The
object was manfestly. private gain, but not
commerce. 1t is true that the bill alleged that
the products of these retneries were sold among
the several States. and that all the companies
were engaged in commerce with the several
states and with foreign nations; but this was no
more than to say that trade and commerce
served manufacturers to fulfil its function.
There was nothing in the proofs to indicate any
intention to put restraint upon trade or COM
or commerce might be indirectly affected was
not enough toentitle companants to decree"
he dissent Of Mr.. Justice Harlan from the
Judgment Of the court was vigorous agument,
devoted to the support Of two propositions:
First, that the sugar Trust was a combination
in restraint of Interstate commerce, and there
fore unlawful: and second. that the national
Government alone was sufficiently powerful to
successfully cope with such an organization.
Justice Harlan aid:
!" If this combination. so far as its operations
directly affect nter-Statc commerce, cannot be
restrained suppressed under some bower
granted to Congress, it will be cause for regret
Constitution did not foresee the necessity OF in
vesting the national Government with ample
power to deal with gigantic monopolies. which
hold in their grasp. and can injuriously control
in their own interest. the entire trade among
the states in food products that are essential TO
the comfort OF every household.
I'VE have before us the case of a combina-
tion which absolutely controls the price OF all
combination, organized for private gain and to
control prices, should obtain possession OF all
other, Of all the oil territory: another, OF all the
salt producing regions: and another. OF al the
great establishments for slaughtering animals
and the preparation OF meats. What power is
competent to protect the people OF the United
States against such dangers except a national
power-one that is capable Of exerting its SOW
ereign authority Throughout every part of the
territory and over all the people of the nationy
The common government of all the people
is the only one that can adequately protect the
entire country agaiEst combinations that tmperll
the freedom Of trade among all the states, 1t
powers should not be so weakened by construc-
tion that IL cannot reach and eradicate evils
that, beyond all question. tend 10 defeat an OBJ
ject which that Government is entitled, by the
Constitution. to attain.
II perceive no difficulty in the way of the
court passing decree declaring that the COM
binatiOn described in the bill imposes an unlaw-
ful restraint upon trade and commerce among
the states, and perpetually enioining it from
further prosecuting any business pursuant To
the unlawful agreements under which ii was
formed or by which 1t was created. such de-
cree would be within the scope of the bill. and il
appropriate to the end which Congress intended
TO accomplish, namely, to protect the freedom
OF commercial intercourse among the States
against combinations and Conspiracies which
impose unlawful restraints upon such inter
course"
Attorney G eneral Olney said he was not at
all surprised at the decision OF the Court.
In, fact, he was expecting Just such re-
suit, from his study Of the law and the facts in
the case, The decision would not affect tho
work of his department., he said, as no cases
under the law were pending, and, therefore, no
prosecutions had to be stopped. lie had based
his action lin not beginning suits indis-
criminateiy against alleged trusts on the
ground that IN nearly all the lower
cisinns had been adNersn TO the L-nited SIAtes.