Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-21
TRUSTS AynomosopoLrEs.
A Lawyers Views ms TO Many Poin's
of Interest.

There Is sufficiently strong puonc
sentiment In the State OF New forh
to have called into existence an investisa-
ton by its Legislature OF the methods
of business adopted and pursued by the
great trusts and monopolies. The EVIL
dence evoked before the leBlsia'Ne
committee makes interesting readihg'
That the trust magnates should DC SUD
poenaed and made 10 come and TAKE
their seats under the public gaze and 10
be impaled on the wltness-stand Win
leading and searching questions OF ,ne
cross-examiner, and compelled 10 give
up their guilty secrets, has furnished
thrilling drama at which. through means
of our enterprising public press, all tne
people have been willing spectators. MI.
Lexow ana his committee are, indeeu'
furnishing the public with reading tha'
is certainly entertaining, il not prohlaois'
1t Is not the first time that the liberty
TO call for persons and papers mas
been applied to the trusts. courts No"-
gress. and Legislatures nave heretofore
asked them some questions, with greater
or less success in eliciting information
but never, until the 5th OF this month";
did one high in authority in a trust
speak without equivocation or reserva-
lion, and say boldly what they were
doing and what they proposed 10 90.
Mr. Henry O. Have meyer, president oA
the American Sugar Reiineries COM
pany. then said that they proposed 20
80 into coffee and do there just what
they had done in sugar; he said tnat
they undoubtedly did control the output
and the price of refined ssgar IN
the United States, and that when
they controlled % per cent. Oh
the output the Supreme Court Oh
the United States decided that
their business was LEGAL. 1t Is easy 70
see that it was this last statement made
by Inn that gave him The complacency
with which he stood his ordeal ana the
holiness with which he made his asser-
lions The Supreme Court Of the United
States did not decide that his business
was legal.
The decision to which he refers was
pronounced January q, 1885, and the case
in which 1t was rendered was the United
States VS.. the Il. c. knight Company
the only case In which the Sherman anti
trust act has been before the Supreme
Court.
THE ACT OF CONGRESS.
This act was passed by Congress on
July 2, 1890, and In general terms de-
clared that every contract, combination
I'm the form Of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy In restraint Of commerce
among the States, is illegal; that every
one who shall make any such contract
or engage in any such combination or
conspiracy. shall be guilty Of INSIDE
meanor and punished by fine or i'm
prisonment or both. o. That every one
who shall monopolize, or attempt 10
monopolize, or combine, or conspre
with any other person to monopohze any
part of the trade or commerce among
the States shall be likewise guilty OF
misdemeanor. 60 Every contract COM
bination in the form of a trust or other
wise, or conspiracy. in restraint Of trade
or commerce in the Territories and be-
tween the Territories and the states or
the District of Columbia, and the states
or foreign nations, is likewise mace
void, etc. o. The several circuit courts
OF the United States are given jurisdic-
ton. and the several district attorneys,
under direction of the AItorney-General'
shall institute proceedings in equity 10
prevent and restrain such violations;
such proceedings may be by petition
PRAYING for Injunction. etc. GD When
ever the ends OF justice require it. other
partles may be brought before the court,
whether they reside in the district In
which the court is held, or not. and sub
poenas to that end may be served in any
district by the marshal thereof 0) ANY
property owned under any contract or
combination. or pursuant to any con-
spiracy. mentioned in section y and be-
-. IF TRANSFORMATION
one state to another or TO foreign
country. shall be forfeited and may be
seized and condemned by like proceed
ings as are provided for the forfeiture
seizure. and condemnation OF property
Illegally imported into the United States
N ANY person who shall be injured In
his business or property by any other
nerson or corporation by reason or any
thing forbidden by the act may sue
therefor in the Circuit Court or the
United States in the district In Whlcn
the defendant resides or Is found WIN
out respect 70 the amount IN controversy
and may recover threefold the uallaseS
sustained by him, costs Of suit, ana
reasonable attorneys fee. % The WORD
"persons" used In the act shall include
"corporations' etc.
The Jurisdiction of Congress and or the
Federal courts over the subject or mo-
nopolies and trusts did not exist as sucn'
hui the object or intent Of the act was
TO reach II through the SECTION OF the
Constitution, known as the commerce
or interstate commerce clause, Whlch
reads:
THE COMMERCE. CLAUSE AND ITS
INTERPRETATION.
Congress shall have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, ana
among the several States. and with IN
dian tribes"
This clause OF the Constitution has re-
ceived judicial Interpretation IN repeated
Instances from Chief-Jusuce Marsnah
down. and its accepted meaning is that
r. "consists Of intercourse and traffic
between their citizens" dhe citizens OF
the several States land includes the
transportation Of persons ana property
as well as the purchase, sale, ana eX-
change of commodities"
WHAT THE COURT DID. AND WHAT
IT DID NOT DECIDE.
The Supreme Court, in the case above
mentioned, decided not that the methods
OF the Sugar Trust were lawful. as as
serted by Mr.. Havemeyer, but that the
laws of Congress could not reach the
subject that II was a matter "lthln the
Jurisdiction OF the States, because the
case brought before the court was only
a monopoly IN manufacture, and that
manufacture. like agriculture or mining,
belonged to the States, while only COM
merce between the States belonged to
Congress.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case may be regarded as one OF
the very first magnitude, as second to none
In importance, not even 70 the income
tax case. 1t was the case OF the Sugar
Trust" coming from the Circuit Court
Of the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania
A bill was filed under the fourth section