The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-05

provided that there should be no competi-
tion between the companies in thirty six
States In the manufacture and sale Of cast
iron pipe The case was brought and first
tried I'm the circuit court for the eastern
district Of Tennessee.
Passing on the objection that the con.
stitutionel proviso could not be held APP
plicable to individuals, Justice Beckham
said: eve concluded that the plain Ian
guAse of the grant to congress OF power 70
regulate commerce among the several
States includes power to legislate upon the
subject of these contracts IN respect to in
terstate or foreign commerce, which d.
rectly offset and regulate that commerce,
and we can find no reasonable ground for
asserting that the constitutional provision
as 80 the liberty OF the individual limits
the extent OF that power as claimed by the
appellants. We. therefore, think the ap-
pellants have failed In their contention
upon this branch Of the subject"
Further on the opinion held that 1.-THE
direct and immediate result OF the COM
bination was necessarily restraint upon
interstate commerce In respect to articles
manufactured by any OF the parties to IL,
to be transported beyond the State in
which they were the defendants, that by
reason of this combination and agreement
could only send their goods out of the
visions of such combination. Was not this
a direct restraint upon interstate COM
merce In those goods? II dealers in any
commodity agree among themselves that
any particular territory bounded By State
lines should be furnished with such com
modify by certain members only OF tho
combination, would not such an agree
ment be regarded as one in restraint of
Interstate trade? If the price OF the com
,pIla .ts.,,
sarily would, the character of the agree
mcnt would be still more clearly In re-
straint OF trade.
1t is useless for the defendants to say
they did not intend to regulate or affect
interstate commerce. They Intended TO
make the very combination and agreement
which they In fact did make aud they must
be held TO have intended the necessary aud
direct result of their agreement"
RemarklEg upon the general aspect of
the case Justice Peckham said: 1--WE have
no doubt that where the direct and imme-
diate eject of a contract or combination
among particular dealers in a commodity
is TO destroy competition between them
and others and that the parties to the
contract or combination may obtain In
creased prices for themselves, such CON
tract or combination amounts to IA restraint
of trade in the commodity even though
contracts to buy such commodity ut the
enhanced prices are continually being
made Total suppression OF the trade in
the commodity Is not necessary In order
TO render the combination one in restraint
OF trade. 1t Is the effect Of the combina-
tion in limiting and restricting the right
OF each of the members to transact bust
ness In the ordinary way as well as it's
effect upon the volume or extent of the
dealings in the commodity that is reg
Ulated."
The opinion then adds; at Is almost
needless TO add that we do not hold every
private enterprise which may be carried
on chiefly or in part by means OF inter
state shipments Is therefore to be re-
garded as related ia Interstate commerce
so as to come within the regulating pow
er of congress. Such enterprises may be OF
the same nature as the manu- ACQUIRING or
engaged as manufacturers of n commodity
to sell and possibly to sell In another
State, but such sale we have already held
is an incident to and not the direct re-
suit OF them, and so is not a regulation
of or any Illegal interference with inter-
state commerce. The principle is not at
tected by anything herein decided"
The decision draws clear distinction
between combinations affecting interstate
commerce and those applying to one State
only. The opinion attracted very gem
eral attention because 1t Is the first opn-
ION on the subject of trusts which has
been handed down since the subject of
trusts has come into great prominence