Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-21

was soId and thereby to exact large sums
of money from citizens OF Pennsylvania'
and OF other States as purchasers. THESE,
In brief were the charges OF the Dill anu
the facts of the case:
Answers were fled and deposition, were
taken, and II wos proved In addition tnat
each OF the purchases was made subject
to the American Sugar-Refining COM
panys obtaining authority to Increase its
stock TO s25. 900 coo, which was subsequently
done: that there was no understanding
or concert OF action between the Stock
holders OF the several Philadelphia con-
Germs respecting the sales, each acting
I'm ignorance of the other; that the con-
tracts of sale in each instance left the
sellers free to establish other refinerles,
and continue the business, II they DESIRED
and contained no provision respecting
trade or commerce In sugar; that the
price OF sugar had been slightly advanced
since that event. but was still lower
than II had been for some years before;
that about 10 per cent. OF the sugar re-
fined and sold in the United States Is
refined In other reineries than those
controlled by the American Sugar-Re-
fining Company; that the object In pur-
chasing the Philadelphia refineries was
TO obtain a greater influence or controi
over the business Of refining ard selling
sugar In this country.
MONOPOLY ESTABLISHED, BUT
COURT COULD NOT REACH 1T.
Mr.. Chief-Justice Fuller delivered the
opinion OF the court, Mr.. Justice Harlan
dissenting. The court takes 1t as
concession that the existence OF a
monopoly In manufacture IS established
by the evidence, but says the funda-
mental question Is whether II can be
suppressed under the act Of Congress.
And this question It proceeds to decide
in the negative on the ground that the
United States Government has no juris-
diction in the case; says 1t Is ques-
ton OF manufacture and not OF COM
merce; that manufacture. along with
agriculture. mining. and other similar
industrial pursuits, belongs to the jurts-
diction OF the States, while commerce
between the States belongs to the juris-
diction Of the United States, each
having its own peculiar jurisdiction,
and each being exclusive of the
other: that II the law Of the State comes
into the province occupied by the juris-
diction Of the United States. the State
must yield because the jurisdiction Of
the United States IS declared to be SUI
preme.
The court. in It's opinion. says:
1.-THE power to regulate commerce Is
the power to prescribe the rule by which
commerce shall be governed. and is a
power independent OF the power to sup
press monopoly. But 1t may operate IN
repression Of monopoly whenever that
comes within the rules by which COM
merce IS governed, or whenever the
transaction Is itself monopoly, OF COM
merce"
And then. after announcing the impor-
rl,- rfr,r, Alt ftat Ion 10
tween the commercial power of the
United States and the police power Of the
States, the court says:
Contracts TO buy, sell, or exchange
goods to be transported among the seve-
raj States, the transportation and its
instrumentalities and articles bought,
sold, or exchanged for the purposes of
such transit among the States, or put
In the way OF transit, may be regulated.
but this is because they form part Of
Interstate trade or commerce. The fact
that an article is manufactured for ex-
port TO another State does not of itself
make 1t an article Of interstate COM
merce, and the intent OF the manufac-
turer does not determine the time when
the article or product passes from the
control OF the State and belongs to COM
merce."
CRITICISM OF THE COURTS DECT-
SION.
The view which the court took OF the
question was that the object of "the
American" in buying up the Philadel-
phia refineries, was private gain in
the manufacture Of the commodity but
not through the control of interstate or
foreign commerce" 1t seems to have
overlooked the fact that the purpose
Of "the American" was 20 effect
monopoly IN purchasing Ohe raw mate
raD, in transporting (the same), in re-
ining dhe same), in transporting again
0he refined sugar.. and In selling (the
same. All these things. except refining,
clearly come within the accepted mean
ing Of the commerce clause; but II let
them out because their several monopo-
lizing operations included refining manu-
facturing), which is a thing that belongs
exclusively to the jurisdiction Of the
States.
This decision does not seem TO have
been one 10 which the court was COM
PEELED; but be that as it may. 1t dis
tinctly says that Congress may repress
monopoly whenever il comes within the
rules by which commerce is governed,
or whenever the transaction is itself a
monopoly of commerce.
THE BLAME FOR NON-ENFORCE-
MENT OF THE ACT is WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION.
This language Of the court raises the
quaere. Why is 1t that the administra-
ton, through its department OF justice,
II at all DESTROYS of depressing monopo-
lies, has not given instructions TO dis
trict attorneys to take up a case in
which the monopoly manifests itself
only I'm the buying. transporting. and
selling? Everybody knows. as Mr.. Have
meyer has Just testified, that the
Sugar Trust controls the buying and
selling of sugar, as well as the trans
portation from State to State. That be-
ing the case, il would seem 10 be very
easy matter to make up a case against
the trust under this act, that would IN
volve only those points, and this view
is taken by Mr.. Justice Harlan, I'm MS
dissenting opinion. II is under the sixth
clause of the act providing for the for
fixture If caught IN transitu from State
10 State, OF any goods owned by trust
or combination. 1t Is presumed that
there could be no objection or jurisdic-
ton over goods in actual transportation.
1t will thus be seen that the decision
of the Supreme Court was far from le-
CALLING trusts or monopolies In re-
straint Of trade. Such combinations have
never found authorization in the courts,
State or Federal, In this country.
RELIEF SHOULD RE SOUGHT IN
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
The proceeding in the New York Legis-
lature IS an index TO those now set on
foot I'm several of the States a. the Union;
but, in my humble Judgment, relief
will only be found in the General Gov
eminent. There have been decisions Of
the Supreme courts in New York, Ohio,
and Illinois declaring the contracts made
by the trusts void; but IL has not stopped
them. They so on. There is hardly
manufactured article In use In the coun-