The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-05
Method of Doing Business Held to Be
I'm Violation of the Anti
Trust Statutes.
DECISION READ BY PECKHAM
1T DOES NOT AFFECT ALL THE
GREAT COMBINATIONS.
Sugar Refining Company Pointed Out
as a Lawful COrporatiOn-Opin-
ions I'm Other Cases.

WASHINGTON, Dec. Ain the United
States Supreme Court to-day the Addyston
pipe case was decided. This case involved
the constitutionality Of the combination of
pipe manufacturers. The decision was
handed down by Justice Peckham and was
| adverse TO the combination. II was there
fore in opposition to the trust The opinion
Of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit
was affirmed.
In reviewing the case Justice Peckham
said it had been brought under the anti
! trust act of 1885, and that an injunction was
asked to enjo the six corporations engaged
in the manufacture of water and gas pipe,
| which composed the combination, from con-
tinuing 10 do business under the agree
ment by which they had divided the terri
tory of the United States among them
| selves and by which they had arranged
! to fix prices. Under this agreement the
| members of the combination provided for
| auctioning Off the right to make bids for
| supplying with pipe cities not in allotted
| territory, the successful bidder to meet no
! opposition from other members of the trust.
J or ii other bids were made none of them
| should be higher than that Of the company
| to which the award had been made by the
/ combination. In cases in which bids were
| asked in territory allotted to members of
| the commission the agreement was that no
BIDS should be made except undsrskhausslpsr-
| vision of the company In charge OF that
territory under the agreement.
| The charge was that such combination
| was violation OF the clause of the Con-
! stitution regulating interstate commerce.
/ The District Court in which the case was
first heard refused to take this view of it,
| but it was reversed by the Court of Ap-
peals of the Sixth circuit, which held the
! combination TO be antagonistic to the Con-
stitution and ordered the issuance of the
| injunction prayed for. This latter decision
was affirmed by the action to-day of the
| Supreme Court, with a modification that
the decision should be construed as apply
| ing to interstate business only.
| APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS.
There were two questions before the
court In connection with the case The first
was whether the constitutional clause for
the regulation of interstate commerce ap-
piled to individuals and to corporations.
and the second. whether, If the clause
should be found to so apply, the combna-
| ton is a regulation of Interstate commerce.
| The court held that the constitutional
clause did apply to individuals and corpor-
ations. and that the agreement does by its
| provisions restrict and restrain commerce
between the States, hence the agreement
was decided to be void as applying to in
terstate business and the injunction sus-
tanned
The six companies composing the COM
| bination affected were the Addyston Pipe
and Steel Company, of CINCINNATI Dennis,
Long & Co.. Of Louisville; the Howard
Harrison Iron Company of Bessemer
Ala. the Admission Pipe and Foundry Com
pany. of Annston. Ala: the South Pitts
| burg pipe works. Of South Pittsburg, Tenn,
and the Chattanooga foundry and pipe
works. of Chattanooga, Tenn. Their agree
ment provided that there should be no
competition between the companies in thir-
ty-six States In the manufacture and sale
of cast iron pipe. The case was brought
and first tried in the Circuit Court for
Eastern Tennessee.
Passing upon the objection that the con-
stitutonal provision could not be held ap-
plicable to individuals. Justice Peckham
said: I'VE conclude that the plain language
of the grant to Congress of power to regu-
late commerce among the several States
includes power to legislate on the subject
! of these contracts in respect TO interstate
or foreign commerce. which directly Offset
and regulate that commerce. and we can
find no reasonable ground for asserting
that the constitutional provision as to the
liberty Of the individual limits the extent
of that power as claimed by the appellants
! We. therefore, think the appellants have
failed in their contention upon this branch
| of the subject"
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
Further on the opinion held that direct
and immediate result of the combination
was necessarily restraint upon interstate
commerce in respect OF articles manufac-
tured by any of the parties to II TO be
transported beyond the State in which they
| were made The defendants. by reason of
this combination and agreement. could only
send their goods out of the State on the
terms and pursuant 10 the provisions Of
such combination. Was not this direct re-
straint upon interstate commerce in those
goods? IL dealers In any commodity agreed
| among themselves that any particular ter
ritory bounded by state lines should be fur
/ nished wan such commodity by certain
members only of the combination and the
| others would abstain from business in that
| territory would not such agreement be
| regarded one in restraint to interstate
| trade? II the price OF the commodity was
| thereby enhanced (as IL necessarily would
| be), the character of the agreement would
be st.l more clearly in restraint OF trade
! IL is useless for the defen n-ants TO saw they
| di not intend 10 regulate or affect inter-
state commerce. They intended to make the
very combination and agreement which
they, In fact. did make. and they must be