The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-12-08
Trusts.

from practically nothing, as
in Jersey, to virtual confiscation If
corporate property under the stop.
trust!" cry, as in some of the Populis-
tic western states These discrepan-
cics in state legislation with reference
to combinations tending to restrain
trade enable trusts to organize in fa-
vorable states and incidentally invade
unfavorable states under the power
lessness of the unfavorable states to
regulate interstate commerce.
In the Addystone Iron Pipe company
case, just passed upon by the supreme
court, the Sherman antitrust act IL
again upheld in a vigorous opinion by
Justice Peckham; that is to say, the
combination which deliberately sets
out to restrain or interfere with inter-
state commerce, is outlawed; but Judge
Peckham in the opinion referred to, as
well as Attorney General Griggs in his
recent issued annual report. both say
that this prohibition of the sherman
act does not cover the operations OF
corporations which affect interstate
commerce only in an incidental man.
ner Says Mr. Peckham on this point:
We do not hold that every private en-
terprisc which may be carried on chief
ly or in part by means of interstate
shipments Is to DC regarded as related
to interstate commerce so as to come
within the regulating power of congress
Such enterprises may be of the same
nature as the manufacturing of refined
4 H. lA ~
gagged ~ manufacturers of a commodity
which they thereafter intend at some
time to SELL and possibly to sell in an
other state: but such sale we have al
ready held is an incident to and not the
direct result of tn" manufacture, and
so is not n regulation of or an Illegal
interference with interstate commerce.
The reason for this distinction is
thus indicated by the attorney general:
If the federal government has consti-
tutionally the power to regulate by legis-
lation all contracts and combinations in
manufacture. agriculture, mining and all
the vast field of productive industry In
! Cluding the employment of labor and the
| investment of capital, where not the di-
! rect but only the incidental or ultimate
! result may affect interstate commerce.
then. as pointed out by Chief Justice Full
| ler it is impossible to say what. if
! anything, Of the ordinary business of life
would remain for state regulation or
| control,
The Addystone Pipe company case
was that of a pool entered into with
| out loss of identity by six corporations
| Intentionally, it is alleged, to bleed con-
! sumers. BY reason of the fact that six
separate organizations were main
! tanned. representing three states, the
! pool" constituted, in the eyes of the
supreme court without dissent a re-
straint upon interstate commerce.; but
| had the six corporations all merged
! into one, having its headquarters in a
single state (as for instance, Jersey
! end then proceeded to do business in
the other states of the Union "inciden-
tally" the inference is that the SUI
preme court would have obligingly dis
missed the proceeding as not lying
within the circle of federal jurisdiction
but belonging rather to the several
states.
The drawing by congress of a clearer
! line Of demarcation between what con-
| stitutCs and what does not constitute
| restraint upon interstate commerce is
one needed step toward solving the
trust problem, and another consists in
federal control Of charter privileges af-
fccting commerce between the states.
! This would call for a constitutional
! amendment.