Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-01-22
SUGAR-TRUST CASE.
Decision BY the Supreme Court Of the
United States.
OPINION ADVERSE TO THE GOVERNMENT
Vigorous Dissent ON the Part of Justice
usrlan-Argumcnt to Sus-
tain II.


appealed from the Court OF Appeals from
the Third Circuit. involving the consti-
tutlonality and validity Of the Sherman
antitrust law. 'in respect OF the ope-
rations OF the Sugar Trust" was decided
in the Supreme Court OF the United States
to-day. adversely TO the contentious of
the government. The suit was begun In
the Circuit Court for the Eastern DIS
trict of Pennsylvania, and was brought
In brief. 10 compel the defendant COIN
panes, the American Sugar-Refining COM
pany. the L. c. Knight Company the
Franklin sugar Company, the Spreckels
Sugar Refining Company. and the Delaware
Sugar House. 10 cancel the contracts by
which the stocks Of the last four hdiheA
corporations were sold to the American
company, through John Il. Searles' IT.
in exchange for American company s.ooN;
and thaC their several stochs pc
- them. on the ground that the i""9
action wss In violation OF the act oi Ju'y
1sqD and that IL effected a combinaIoh
IN restraint of interstate commerce. inc
Clreuit Court dismissed the bill ana the
Court Of Appeals affirmed tha' ueV's'on
Thereupon the United states proseS -
it, appeal to the Supreme Court u ~.
United States C'-'ef-Justce fuheI
nounced the opinion and decision OF '"e
court. a,.,,,, and
After discussing the legal meaning a'la III
effect Of the term ihoi'oi'o'y ,,I
opinion proceeds l"e 49,. ,+,,,, tho
ouestion Is whether. concedng tnat .he
syistencs of a monopoly in mihuiactuie @
a. ss,ablishei by the evidence 'hdt iio
nonolv can be directly suppressel u', ui''S
,ba act of Congress in the mode dt'ei''P'O'
by this bin 40, rrovide."
.. "h,af-Iue,ice said, that inters'a'e
no,n,nerce shall be free, but by ,ne :,
of This exclusive power to reg Su'Hte ,,n,
ras left free. except to presciiDe '.r,ad ''.e
nv which cOmmerce shah W e, ,,o,ror
and IS a power independent VI ' o','o,a,e
- e,,,rress monopoly. But III may oPc'a'
~ ~ 'uir ,iarprossion of monopoly whtheEti
~, coroes within the rules by "hiS"
a",,,,,o,ce Is governed, or whenever wv
,ra,,sac,ion is itself a monopoly Oh eo
,,erce II is vital that the huepo'ie,i
90 tho commercial power ana OF 'i,e po
Va - and the delimitatiOn pet"ce"
,bem however sometimes per -
sbould always be recognized am A.,
earved. for while the one luIilsh'a
strongest bond OF union the othei
al
,lno,nv ~ the States. as required ny o"'
All form Of government; and acknoW-
Iced evils however pressing anu 'in
,,,, ,bev NAV appear to be, had peI,el
he horne than the risk be rum III ~
.ffort to suppress them, OF more se. ''"
oousenuences by resort TO eXpedleh'S VI
oven doubtful constitu'ionahV'
WELI-SETTLED PRINCIPLES
, ,.,. r. aIsettled prin-
ci,Iss that the act of July :, lSJo. ""S
e.lp..,a congress did not attempt there
IA, IN assert the power to deal with mono,
,,o,,, directly as such. or 10 limit anu
restrict the rights of corporations ciea..u
hv States. or the citizens OF states III ''s
acouisttIon. control or disposition Vi
nronertv. az Congress might impose
straints. Therefore. II mas Deeh ue''
mined that the failure oil Cohs'es9 "
exercise this exclusive power III any o"oo
IL nm expression of its VIII 'hal ',s
subject shall be free from ies'''C'.o.'s 'c.
irnnositions upon ii by the several sta.es'
ia II law passed by n state IN the
evercise of its acknowledged powers
comes into conflict with that VIII the
Compress and the State cannot occupy
tho pssiti0n of equal opposing soVereish-
tics because the Constitution declares 'S
supremacy and that Of the laws passeu III
,mrsuance thereof: and that which IL
no, sunreme must yield to that which Il
supreme. ,.,r. o,
continuing. the opinion says: INC ar
gIment Is that the power To cohtroi t'0
,nanufactur- of refined sugar Is mo-
nonolv over n necessity OF HE, 10 the
ON niovment Of which by a large part OF
the nopulation OF the United States inter-
state commerce is Indispensable, ana mat
therefore. the General Government In tne
exercise Of the power 10 regulate COM
nerce may repress such monopoly
directly. and set aside the instruments
which have created IL. But TINS arsuihvnt
cannot be confined TO necessaries ol "ie
merely. and must include all articles OF
general consumption. Doubtless the
poWer TO control the manufacture OF d
given thing involves in certain sense
the control Of its disposition. but this
is n 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
II and affects IL only incidentally ana
Indirectly. Commerce succeeds to manu-
facture and Is not part OF IL. Inc
power to regulate commerce Is the power
10 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
tha States OF their residence sanctioned
or permitted.
NO RESTRAIN UPON TRADE.
aside from the provisions applicable
where Congress might exercise municipal
power. what the law struck at was COM
bnatiOns contracts, and conspracies 10
monopOlize trade and commerce among
the several States or with foreign nations;
but the contracts and acts of the de-
fendants were made exclusively with
view TO the acquisition of the Philadel-
phia refineries and the business OF sugar
refining in Pennsylvania. and bore no
direct relation to commerce between the
States or with foreign nations. The OBJ
ject was manifesty private gain in the
manufacture of q commodity, but not
through the control of interstate or for
eign commerce Ii is true that the bill
alleged that the products Of the retineres
were sold among the several States, and
that all the companies were engaged In
trade or commerce with the several
States and with foreign nations. but this
was no more than 10 say that trade and
commerce served manufacture TO fulfil its
function
There was nothing in the proofs to Inc
upon trade or commerce. and the fact, as
we have seen, that trade or commerce
might be indirectly affected was not
enough TO entitle complainants TO a de-
cree. The subiect-matter of the sale was
shares of manufacturing stock, and the
relief sought was the surrender of pro-
perty which had already passed and the
suppression OF the alleged monopoly in
manufacture by the restoration of the
status quo before the transfers; yet the
act OF Congress only authorizes the Cir
cult Courts 10 proceed by way of pre-.
venting and restraining violations OF the
act In respect of contracts. commissions,
or conspracies in restraint of interstate
or international trade or commerce.
''The Circuit Court declined. upon the
pleadings and proofs. TO grant the RELIEF
prayed, and dismissed the bill. and we are
OF the opinion that the Circuit Court OF
Appeals did not err in affirming that de,
cree Decree affirmed"
The dissent OF Mr. Justice Harlan from
the Judgment of the court Is a vigorous
argument. devoted 10 the support of two
propositions-iirst. that the Sugar Trust
IL a combination In resraint of interstate
commerce. and therefore unlawful. and.
second. that the National Government
alone Is sufficiently powerful to success