The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-01-22
SALES TO THE SUGAR TRUST
They Can't Be knocked Out by The
Sherman Antitrust Law.

companies 10 GanCel the contracts Dy
Which Their Stock Was Sold to the
Sugar Trust in Exchange for Sugar
Trust Stock.
Washington. Jan. 2l-The important
case Of The United States vs.. e. c. knight
Company ct. al. appealed from the court
of appeals for the Third circuit. involving
the consututionality and validity Of the
Sherman antitrust law" in respect Of
the operations 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 district of Pennsylvania
and was brought in brief to compel the de-
fendant companies-the American Sugar
Refining Company. the l.. c. Knight
Company, the Franklin Sugar Company,
the Spreckles Sugar Refining Company
and the Delaware Sugar House-to cancel
the contracts by which the stocks of the
last four named corporations were sold
to the American Company. through John
/ +. Searles. Jr., in exchange for American
! Company stock, and that their several
| stocks be returned to them. on the ground
that the transaction was in violation Of
the act of July p 1880. and that IT effected
a combination in restraint of interstate
commerce. The circuit court dismissed
the bill, and the court of appeals affirmed
| that difference Thereupon the United
/ States prosecuted its appeal TO the SUI
/ prcme court of the United States.
/ Chief Justice Fuller announced the opin-
| ion and decision Of the court. After dis
/ cussing the legal meaning and effect Of
/ the term monopoly" the opinion pro-
| ceeds: "The fundamental question is
| whether, conceding that the existence Of
/ a monopoly in manufacture is established
/ by the evidence, that monopoly can be dl-
/ rectly suppressed under the act OF con-
/ gress in the mode attempted by this bill
/ The constitution does not provide"
| the chief justice says, that interstate
/ commerce shall be free, but by the grant
/ of this exclusive power 10 regulate it, 1t
was left free except as congress might
| impose restraints Therefore it has been
determined that the failure of congress
| to exercise this exclusive power in any
case is an expression of its viii that the
subject shall be free from restrictions or
/ impositions upon it by the several states,
! and il a law passed by state in the eX-
ercise Of its acknowledged powers comes
/ i'm conflict with that viii the congress and
the state cannot occupy the position of
/ equal opposing sOVereignites, because the
I constitution declares its supremacy, and
/ that Of the laws should in pursuance
/ thereof; and that which is not supreme
must yield to that which is supreme"
/ Continuing, the opinion says: The ar
/ gument is that the power to control the
/ manufacture of refining sugar is a mo-
nopoy over a necessary of life, to the
| enjoyment Ct which by a large part Of
/ the population of the United States, in
| terstate commerce is Indispensable, and
that therefore, the general government
| i'm the exercise of the power to regulate
! commerce, may repress such monopoly
! directly and set aside the instruments
/ which have created it. But this argu-
! ment cannot be confined to necessaries
/ of life merely, and must include all arti-
/ cles of general consumption. Doubtless
| the power to control the manufacture
| Of a given thing involves in a certain
| sense the control Of its disposition.
| But this is a secondary and not the pri-
! mary sense; and although the exercise of
| that power may result in bringing the
/ operation of commerce into play, it does
! not control it, and affects it only inciden-
/ tally and directly. Commerce succeeds
! to manufacture and is not a part of it,
! The power to regulate commerce is the
| power to prescribe the rule by which com
| merce shall be governed, and il is a power
/ independent of the power to suppress
! monopoly. But it may operate in repres-
/ sion of monopoly whenever that comes
/ within the rules by which commerce is
/ governed, or whenever the transaction it.
! self is a monopoly of commerce. 1t is vital
/ that the independence of the commercial
| power and of the police power and the de-
/ Limitation between them, however, some
I times perpleXing, should always be recog-
/ nized and observed, for while the one fur
nishes the strongest bond of union the
/ other is essential to the preservation Of
/ the autonomy Of the states as required by
/ our dual form of government; and ac-
! llnowledged evils, however, pressing and
/ emergent they may appear to be, had bet
/ ter be borne, than the risk be run, in the
/ effort to suppress them, of more serious
| consequences by resort to expedients of
/ even doubtful constitutionality.
lit was in the light OF well-settled prin-
] ciples that the act of July 2 1890 was
! framed. Congress did not attempt therby
/ to assert the power to deal with monop-
oily directly as such; or TO limit and re-
/ strict the rights of corporations created
I by the states or the citizens of the 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 tho
acquisition and control of property which
/ the states OF lnelf feSlQenCe or creation
sanctioned or permitted. Aside for the
/ provisions applicable where congress might
/ exercise municipal power, what the law
struck at was combinations, contracts, and
/ conspiracies to monopolize trade and COM
I merce among the several states or with
/ foreign nations; but the contracts and acts
/ Of the defendants related eclusiVely to the
! ACQUISITION of the Philadelphia refnerles
and the business Of sugar refining in
/ Pennsylvania and bore no direct relation
/ to commerce between the states or with
/ foreign nations.
THE object was manifestly private gain
I in the manufacture of the commodity.
/ but not through the control of interstate
( or foreign commerce. 1t is true that the
/ bill alleged that the products of these re-
/ fnerfes were sold and distributed among
/ the several states, and that all the com
/ panies were engaged in trade or commerce
/ with the several states and with foreign
I nations; but this was no more than to say
/ that trade and commerce served manu-
/ facture to fulhll its function. There was
nothing in the proofs to Indicate any in