Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-05

Stratnt OF trade, and that IN entering ilt'
them the defendants combined ana CON
sDirad to restrain the trade and commerce
in refined sugar among the several states
and with foreign nations contrary to the
act of Congress Of jay = IS9o. ! ne rei -s
sought was the cancellation OF the agree
rnents under which the stock was trans
ferred: the redelivery of the stock TO me
parties, respectively, and an injunction
against the further performance of the
agreements and further violations of The
act.
statute Failed to Reach the Case.
The court held that, concedng the result
of this transaction was the creation of
monopoly in the manufacture of a neces-
sary of life 1t could not be suppressed I'M
der the provisions of the Sherman act, be-
cause the contracts and acts of the de-
PENDANTS related exclusively to the ac-
QUESTION of the Philadelphia reffneries and
the business of sugar refining in Pennsyl-
vania. which bore no direct relation to
commerce between the states or with for
eign nations. The object was manifestN
private gain in the manufacture OF a COM
modify but not through the control of in
terstate or foreign commerce. There was
nothing in the proofs to indicate an intention
to put restraint upon trade or commerce,
and the fact that trade or commerce might
be indirectly affected was not enough to en-
title cOmplainants to Il decree
In the course of the opinion delivered by
the chief justice he considers the line If
deimita ton between the right of the fed
cral government under the interstate com
merCe clause of the Constitution to eXer-
else control of that branch of commerc"
and the right of the states to exercise eN-
elusive jurisdiction over all matters per-
tanning to the lives health, property and
business of its citizens which do not directly
involve interstate commerce.
In the recent case of Hopkins against
United States. III L. s.. 17S. the court re-
iterated It's opinion that the Sherman act
rpf mi n hat DO
merce which exists or may exist among
the several states or with foreign nations.
and has no application whatever to other
trade or commerce.
And it held that in order to come within
the prohibition and remedy of the Sherman
act the combination, business or oCcupa-
ton sought to be condemned must be one
which directly affects Interstate commerce.
and that combinations in business which
affect interstate commerce only in an indi
rect and incidental manner are not within
the statute.
If the federal government has constitu-
tionally the power to regulate by legisla-
ton all contracts and combinations in man
ufecture, agriculture. mining and all the
vast field of productive industry. including
the employment of labor and the invest
meTt of capital where not the direct but
only the incidental ultimate result may
affect interstate commerce. then, as point
ed out by Chief Justice Fuller it is impos-
sible 10 say what, if anything, of the or
binary business of life would remain for
state regulation or control.
Where state Laws Apply.
The ordinary affairs of business and trade
OF industry and production. are gOvernablc
by the laws of the several states. The
state legislatures can say what methods
OF bargain and sale what forms of COM
merctdl or labor contracts, what kinds of
corporations or partnerships, shall be per-
missble within their several Jurisdictions
The power of control or regulation by the
federal government exists only in excap-
tional instances where actually conferred by
the Constitution of tho United states Sucb
an excantinn is tho repuI1tion of interstate
commerce Rut unless anthority for the
control of a branch of industry or husinrts
by The tinted States can he found in rhe
Cor stitl1tioI, IL cannot TightfnIly hi, ever
ci.s1 l.l, must b. Isfr I.berf il rasfad no
for- III. Union was fouudfd-wi1h tho peo-
r,I.. ,f + h.. several states
= of course / do nnt refer hero IN that kind
Of f,,iGa,,+aI ,asr,IIatfrn so,na+jrons 49,
cised nv The federal eyoyarnmant i'm aid Of
acts Ieyyinp taxes In all such cases the
object If the law is the raising of revenue
and NOT the regulation of the business or
branch Of nrndnrtjon which * tavnd II
* "a secure the honest nayuant of taxes
not 10 furnish saIutary Safeguards for the
general public
In every instance therefore where resort
Is sought to federal jurisdiction against
combinations in restraint of trade the first
question tn be decided is What kind of
trade is dffGcte13 IF that known
as interstate commerce. then the federal
courts are without jurisdiction Ii is also
obvious ON principle and from reference to
the decisions of the federal Supreme Court
that A direct subject of the combination
must be commerce; not simply production
not simply manufacture, not the mere ap-
Pilca Lon VI 4aooI VI 9AtIi' Du' ,l,,,n
which involyes the buyfng selling and ex-
change of commodities, and their transpor-
tation and delivery
II Is also wen settled ana perfectly cledr
oL PI nc rar no and
control but only such as is carried on be
tween The sayaraI states or with other ma
tfons-what IL familiarly and accurately
called interstate commerce
II therefore any particular trade busi-
ress entnrnrisa system of manufa cture or
,tToductior oF anv Kind not having the ole
vents Of commerce as legally defned or
- such business nnsseesinP the quality
~ cornmarre hut not extending as such
I,rt,-oa,, ~ states or with other nations
- oInena5 ~ cornnarciaI onaratIon 70
~ 49, oe :, eto+a Ia 90 orpanizad or
nc In O. 70 forno total or nartiaI mo-
tI r,hjoL inimr,ousI,, restrains trade
itoP'if ti,i :; ao,ao. ~ $500 ~
anu -; Sinti, ~ - s,Ihiant
ueI tlle i'uc4 az Jul - 80 ~ '., - .t1S -