The Saint Paul globe., 1900-12-05

cOHLFOI uoIOpOuStlC leuuSHClSS dhAOilS
large corporations was the interstate
commerce act, designed to prevent pool~
ing among competing lines of railroads.
This act was passed in the SOS. and has
had wholesome effect on the DISPOSE
ton to consolidate railroad interests for
the purpose of eliminating competition in
freight rates.
The growth of gigantic combinations,
with purpose single to the control of
production and the advance of prices, led
to the passage of. the Sherman antitrust
act, which became a law in 1890. The
title states the purpose of the law: ''An
act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopo-
les
Section declares every contract,
combination, or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce among the states
to be illegal and makes the act mis-
demeanor, punishable with fine or i'm
prisonment, or both.
Section 2 makes it misdemeanor
" AiOAolOllNe VI attempt 70 1IOIiOPOA1Ae
such trade or commerce.
Section 8 declares contracts for
such purposes illegal and subjects the
parties thereto to a fine or to imprison-
ment.
Section gives the federal courts
Jurisdiction and imposes upon the dis
triet attorneys under the direction of the
attorney general the duty of enforcing
the law.
The first case arising under the anti
trust law to reach the supreme court
was, United States VS.. E. E. Knight
company" the famous sugar trust case.
The American Sugar Refining company,
Of New Jersey, had contracted for the
purchase of the plants of four inde-
pendent sugar refneries in Philadelphia.
It was to declare these contracts void
that the suit was brought. The facts
revealed by The trial were as follows:
The American Sugar Refining company
controlled 65 per cent of the sugar output
of the United States. The four refneries
of Philadelphia produced 80 per cent of
the output, leaving only 2 per cent to
maintain the competition of trade. The
object of the purchase or the consolida-
ton was clearly to monopolize the sugar
output, that not only the prices might
be raised, but that the production might
be controlled. The evidence showed that
the material for the refneries was gath
cred from various states, and the product
not only found market in the various
states of the Union, but in foreign lands
Also Here was a case which clearly
came under the terms and spirit Of the
antitrust act. But a majority of the
court, however, held that the contract of
purchase related only to the transfer of
the plants and only remotely to the sub
ject of interstate commerce, and conse-
quently was not within the meaning Of
the law This view was so narrow that
it not only was against the spirit, but
also the letter of the act. Justice Harlan,
in his dissenting opinion, took the COM
mon sense ground that interstate COM
merce consists not only in the transpor-
tation of an article from one state to
another, but it also includes the manu-
facture and sale of the same, together
with all business transactions necessary
in the present commercial conditions.
This statement seems almost automatic.
Yet a majority of the supreme court
could not see it that way.
In the case of United States vs.. Hop
king. the court even went step further
to give the antitrust law Knockout
blow. The Cattle Dealers Association Of
Kansas City sought TO nonopolize the
cattle market and control prices by pre-
venting any member of The association
from either buying from or selling to any
one outside of the association. Although
the object of this combination was ap-
parent, and the result a monopoly OF a
trade coming from all points of the COM
pass, the court held that the association
was local and not within the purview
of the antitrust law.
The action of the supreme court in the
sugar case had the effect of discouraging
trust litigation and gave a plausible Pre-
! text for non-action on the part of the
attorney general and other district at
torneys whose sympathies were known
| to be with the trust interests.
There were, however, a few cases tried
where the law proved ample, even when
appealed to the supreme court. A case
in point was United States VS.. The Addy-
ston Pipe ana steel. company. This case
was tried in Tennessee, Judge Taft writ
ing the opinion. Here was a combina-
ton which divided up the territory into
spheres of influence" where the mem
bers of the combine did not compete for
trade except to put in straw bids always
higher than the one in control, in order
to keep up the semblance of competition.
Certain sections Of territory were left
open to all, but the contracts were sub
mftted to a committee and let to the
member Of the combine which offered
the highest bonus to be divided among
the members AS the operations of this
unholy combination covered several
states, the court was compelled to affirm
the decision of the lower court. so far
as the operations extended into neigh
boring states.
Another similar case, but which vas
never appealed, was United States vs.. The
Coal Dealers Association of San Fran