The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-05
PIPE TRUST CASE DECIDED.
DECISION or THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.
Tho Supreme Court, in an Opinion by JUS
tice Peckhnm, Holds It's n Combination
in Restraint of Interstate Commerce.

Tho Supreme Court, In an Opinion by JUS
tice Peckhnm, Holds It's n Combination
in Restraint of Interstate Commerce.
WASHINGTON. Dec. 4.-The Supreme Court
OF the United States to-day affirmed the de-
cison OF the Circuit Court OF Appeals o! the
Sixth Circuit against the Addyston Pire Com.
pany. This case was known as the Pipe Trust
case. The action was brought In tho United
States District Court for Tennessee by the
United States Attorney against the combina-
tion OF iron pipe manufacturers. on the ground
that It was In violation OF the antitrust law. as
being In restraint OF commerce between tho
States. The District Court decided In favor o..
the defendants. but this was reversed on APP
peal to the Circuit Court Of Appeals for the
Sixth District. The pipe com panies brought
an appeal to the Supreme Court OF the United
States. which to-day decided that the comb.-
nation was In restraint OF commerce between
the States. This IL the first decision under the
antitrust law where the law has been applied
20 anything but transportation.
The decision was announced by Mr.. Justice
Peckham. who read an exhaustive opinion In
which he said:
1T is insisted by the appellants at the
threshold Of the inquiry that by the true con-
btructon OF the constitution the power OF
Congress to regulate Interstate @ ommerce is
limited 10 its protection from acts OF interior
ence by state legislation. or by means OF regu-
lations made under the authority OF the state
by some political SUI bdivlsion thereof. including
also Congressional power over common car
riefs. elevator. Ras and water companies, Tor
reasons stated to be peculiar to such carriers
and companies, but that IL does not include
the general power to Interfere with or pro-
hibit private contracts between citizens. even
thonsh ruen contacts ac, havg intsrIa.e Som
and substantial obstruction to or regulation oil
that commerce.
guage OF the Constitution regarding the liberty
OF the citizens as 70 hold that II includes or
a contract which in fact restrained and regu-
lated interstate commerce. notwith tanning
Congress. proceeding under the constitutional
that commerce. had prohibited such contracts.
What sound reason can be given why Con-
the case Of the State and Yet have none in the
case OF the indiyiduol? Commerce is the i'm
por,ant subject Of consideration; and ANYTHING
that commerce which is carried on among the
States. whether il is State legis atlon or prl-
TONS should he subject TO the power OF Con-
gress in the regulation Of that commerce,
10 conclusion the opinion said:
1T Ia almost needless to add that we do not
bold ths e Nv which
garded as 80 related to Interstate commerce as
to come within the regulating power OF Con-
nature as the manufacturing OF refined sugar
In the knight case.that Is. the parties may be
STsSs ,beS as al
SO and possibly to sell in another State; but
such sale we have already held Is an incident
and so Is not regulation OF or an illegal inter-
ference with Interstate commerce. That prin-
ciple, is not affected by anything herein de-
THE views above expressed lead generally
TO an affirmance OF the Judgment OF the Court
nj haN
iudameat is too broad neft tepmst i 'h n1
junction is too absolute In Its directions it
merce wholly within State as We'll as to to that that
which Is interstate or international only. This
Pr0saSY an nsSveTtePss merely
might reside and carry on business In the
same State where the pipe. provided for in
the sale. Transportation and delivery OF the
pipe by them under that contract would be a
you'd T0 Tsn aE sn tie the
that case. They might make any combinn-
on hsy chose Ttn to the FRO
some n9n-resident OF the State eventually
cludes IN its scope the enjoning OF defendants
thus situated from combining In regard to
Is 's snd Rs IN to A ths.
the combination or agreement which is inter.
state IN Its cha, acter As thus modified. the
The decision was made the excuse in tho
stock market yesterday for some OF the selling
Of stocks, although those best informed in the
matter said that recently organized large In
dustrial ombinations were not affected by the
decision. The case was originally brought BY
direction OF tho Attorney General In the Cir
cult Court OF the United States for the Eastern
district OF Tennessee on Dee. 10. 1885, against
7 he fol lowing named corporations to restrain
them t from continuing their alleged viola.
operating under an alleged illegal com,
bination as the Associated Pipe Works."
Addyston Pine and steel Company
Of Cincinnati Dennis. Long 4 %. OF
Louisville; Howard Harrison Iron Company OF
Company Of Admission. Ala South Plttsburg
Pipe Works Of South Pitts burg, Tenn, and
Foundry and Pipe Works OF