The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-22
won By THE TRUST.
Sugars Great Victory in the
Supreme Court.
NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
As Being No Restraint Upon Inter.
state Commerce.
MUST BE SETTLED BY THE STATES.
1t Is Held That the Sherman Law Does
Not Apply to This Particular
Monopoly.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21.-The Supreme Court
to-day rendered an opinion in the sugar
trust case of the United States VS.. e. c.
Knight and others, involving the validity
and constitutionality of the Sherman anti
trust law. The decision holds the law to
be inappicable to the case in hand and
confirms the opinion of the Circuit Court.
In his opinion Chief Justice Fuller said
that the fundamental question involved
was whether, conceding that the existence
Of monopoly in manufactures is estab-
lished by the evidence, that monopoly can
be directly suppressed under the act OF
the Supreme Court has uniformly held that
Congress in the mode attempted. He
says under law the the method OF
relief for 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 one
State, hence it becomes question in the
present instance whether there has been an
interference with interstate or foreign COM
merce.
The opinion then asserts that while
commerce succeeds to manufacture, it is
not part of it, and says that while the ex-
ercise of the power to control the manu-
facture of an article may result in bringing
the operation of commerce into play, it
does not control the commerce in that
article and really affects it only incident
ally and indirectly. 1t is laid down that
''the fact that an article is manufactured
for export to another State does not of
itself make an article for interstate COM
merce, and the interest of the manufac-
turer does not determine the time when
the article passes from the control of the
State and belongs to commerce" And
further on: at was in the light of we'll
settled principles that the act of July 2,
1890, was framed. Congress did not at
tempt thereby to assert the power to deal
with monopoly directly as such, or to limit
or restrict the rights of corporations
created by States, or the citizens of States,
in the acquisition, control or disposition
of property; or to regulate or prescribe the
price or prices at which such property or
the products thereof should be sold; or to
make criminal the acts of persons in the
acquisition and control of property which
the States of their residence sanctioned or
permitted"
1t says that while it is clear that the COM
bination was made for the purpose of gain
this was not to be accomplished through
the control of the interstate commerce. In
this case commerce merely served manu-
facturers to fulfill its functions.
''The subject matter of the SALE" says
the opinion, ''was shares of manufacturing
stock, and the relief sought was the sur
rendered 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 restraining viola
tions of the act in respect to contracts.
combinations or conspiracies in restraint
of interstate and international trade or
commerce"
Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opin-
ion, said that, as the Supreme Court had
heretofore held that interstate commerce
meant more than mere traffic between the
States and included the buying and selling
of commodities, and in view of the fact
that the Court OF Appeals had stated that
the object of the combination of the sugar
companies was not only for the control of
the manufacture of sugar, but also for its
sale, he thought the case was one which
came within the scope of interstate COM
merce and was amenable to Congressional
action