Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1895-01-26
VICTORY ron THE SUGAR TRUST
supreme Court AYERS That II Has ENaded
or Broken No Laws.


Washington. Jan. 2l.-The supreme
court rendered an opinion In the sugar
trust companies of the United states
vs.. r. c. knight and others involving
the validity and constitutionaIity OF the
Sherman antitrust law. The decision
holds the law to be applicable TO the
case i'm hand and confirms the opinion
Of the circuit court
In his opinion, Chief Justice Fuller
said the fundamental question involves
whether conceding that the existence Of
monopoly III manufactures Is cstab-
lshed hy evidence. that a monopoly can
he directly suppressed under an act Of
congress In the mode attempted. He
saws the supreme court has uniformly
held that under the constitution that
In procedures for the relief or citizens
Of each state from the burden Of mo
nupoly and the evil arising from re-
| straint Of trade was for states 10 deal
with them when confined to the limit of
any Of the states. Hence II becomes
| a question In the present instance
| whether there has been interference
| with the interstate or foreign commerce,
4 The opinion then asserts that while
4 commerce succeeds manufacture. II is
/ not a part Of Ii and says that while the
exercise Of power 10 control the manu-
| facture Of an article may result in
| bringing the direct operation of com
| merce into play. IL does not control
| commerce In that article and really
| affects IL only Incidentally and indi-
| rertly. II II laid down that that the
fact that an article Is manufactured
for export 10 another state. does not
II itself make II an article of inter-
state commerce and the interest Of the
manufacturer does not determine the
time when the article pasues the control
If the state and belongs 10 commerce. .
And further on. ''it was In the light OF
we'll settled principles that the act OF
July, 1880. was arranged. Congress did
not attempt thereby TO assert the power
10 deal with a monopoly directly as
such or to limit or to restrict the rights
| OF corporation created by states. oi
citizens of states. In the acquisition
control or disposition of property. OF 4
regulate or prescribe the price or prices
at which property or the products there
Of should be sold. SO as to make Grim
inal the acts OF persons in the acuuisi
tion and control OF property which tn,
states OF their residences sanctioned OF
permitted"
The subject matter of the sale.
says the opinion, was that the shares o
manufacturing stock ON which relic
was sought was surrendered propert,
: which had already passed the provinces
. of suppression of alleged monopoly. We
the act Of congress only authorized cir
: cult courts te proceed by way Of pre-
! venting and restraining violations o
: the act In respect 10 contracts. combf
nations or conspiracies in restraint o
Interstate and international trade o
/ | commerce."
. Justice Harlan, IN dissenting opin
ion. said the supreme court heretofor
I | held that interstate commerce mean
i more than mere traffic between state
) aud included the buying and selling o
5 commodities and In view OF the fac
0 that the court of appeals had stated tina
. the object Of the combination of tn
: sugar companies was not only for IN
5 control Of manufacturers Of sugar. bu
: also for It's sale. he thought the cas-
was one which came within the seop
: 81 interstate commerce and was amen
e ahle 10 congressional action