The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-22
Secretary Carlisle Before the HOME
Appropriations Committee In the
Interest Of Silver Certificates.
CHANCE FOR INDIANAPOLIS
PUBLIC BUILDING MAY rs SECURED
IF STRONG EFFORTS BE MADE.
Condition of Indiana Banks as Re-
ported to the Controller of the Cur
rency-Judge RicIks's Statement.


States Supreme Court to-day rendered an
opinion in the Sugar Trust case of the
United States VS.. E. c. knight and others,
involving the stability and constitutionality
of the Sherman antitrust law. The decision
holds the law to be inapplicable to the
case in hand ard confirms the opinion of
the Circuit Court.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Fuller said
that the fundamental question involved ID
whether conceding that the existence OF
monopoly in manufacture is established by
the evidence, that monopoly can be direct
ly suppressed under the act of Congress in
the mode attempted He says the Supreme
Court has uniformly held that under the
Constitution the relief Of the citizens OF
each State from the burden of monopoly
and the evils resulting from the restraint
of trade was for the States to deal with
when confined to the limits Of any of the
States. Hence it becomes a question in the
present instance whether there has been an
interference with Interstate of foreign COM
merce. The opinion then asserts that while
commerce succeeds to manufacture 1t 10
not a part of it and says that while the
exercise of the power to control the man
ufacture of an article may result in bring
ing the operation of commerce into play 1t
does not control the commerce in that ar
ticle and really affects 1T only incidentally
and indirectly. 1t is laid down that sThe
fact that an article is manufactured for
export to another State does not of itself
make it an article of Interstate commerce,
and the interest of the manufacturer does
not determine the time when the article
passes from the control of the State and
belongs to commerce." and further on, 1T
was in the light of well settled principles
ocf of J11Iu w framed
Congress did not attempt thereby to assert
the power to deal with monopoly directly
as such or to limit restrict the rights
of corporations created by States, or the
citizens of States, in the acquisition, con-
troll or disposition of property, or to regu-
late or prescribe the price or prices at
which such poperty or the products thereon
should be sold: or to make criminal the
acts of persons in the acquisition and con-
troll of property, which the States OF their
residence sanctioned or permitted 1t says
that while it Is clear that the combination
was made for the purpose OF gain this was
not to be accomplished through the con-
troll of Interstate commerce. In this case
commerce merely served the manufacturer
to fulfill it's function. 1.-The subject matter OF
the sale" says the opinion, was shares
of manufacturing stock and the relief
sought was the surrendered property which
had already passed, and the suppression
of the alleged monopoly, yet the act of
Congress only authorized the Circuit Courts
to proceed by way Of preventing and re-
straining violations of the act in respect
of contracts, combinations of conspiraciess
in restraint of interstate trade or COM
merce.
Judge Harlan, in his dissenting opinion,
said that as the Supreme Court heretofore
held that Interstate commerce meant more
than mere tariff between the States and
included the buying and selling of COM
modities and in view of the fact that the
Court of Appeals had stated that the OBJ
ject of the combination OF the sugar COM
panies was not only for the control of the
manufacture of sugar but also for it's sale,
he thought the case was one which came
within the scope of interstate commerce
and was amenable to congressional action.
Attorney general Olney declined to ex-
press any opinion on the decision to-day
of the Supreme Court in the Sugar Trust
case until he had read the whole opinion.
1t is known, however, that Mr.. Olney has
never had any faith in the ability OF the
government to enforce the Sherman anti
trust act against the Sugar Trust, and.
therefore, to-days decision against the
government was surprise to him. 1t is
also believed that he Is equally skeptical or
success against the Tobacco Trust or any
of the other great combinations, with the
possible exception OF that OF railroads.