The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-21
THE STATE AND THE TRUSTS.

THE STATE AND THE TRUSTS.
Throughout the entire discussion of the
trust problem there has been a very I'M
fortunate tendency shown on all sides to
run to congress for the necessary relief.
Democrats and Republicans alike have
shown this disposition. And 1t is one
which is not unlikely to throw the move
ment of trust destruction back instead Of
forward.
When Attorney General Griggs declared
that it was with the state, rather than
with the general government, that the
true remedy lay, he was right. He has
been denounced by those who ought to
know better for his very sensible view
OF course it is under the interstate
clause of the federal constitution that
congress derives jurisdiction of the SUBJ
ject. Contracts which are sin restraint
of trade or commerce among the sew
eral states or with foreign nations are
those alone which are obnoxious to the
federal antitrust law.
The supreme court is very clear in its
specification Of this kind Of contracts.
In one case it said 1.-The contract con-
demned by the statute is one whose di-
rect and immediate effect is q restraint
of that kind of trade or commerce which
is interstate" This restraint must be
direct and immediate. 1t must not be one
which merely indirectly. remotely,
interstate commerce.
The distinction involves a difference,
and very material one at that. The
court in question in the sugar trust case,
in the Kansas City live stock cases, in
the Traffic association case and, last of
ALL in the Adyston steel pipe case, de-
cided month or two ago, insisted on
this distinction. 1t is not only the manu-
facture. but the sale and delivery Of the
article in different states which Is a reg
ulation of interstate commerce. Congress
can, Of course, have nothing whatever to
say as to either the manufacture or sale
of commodities within given state, no
matter how utterly destructive a given
transaction may be of freedom of COM
petition. No federal law can reach such
q transaction
trust may completely control the pro-
duction of given commodity 1t may
lay all its plans for the sale of that COM
modify all over the country practically
free from competition. and congress be
still unable to lay a hand on it, II the
sale of the commodity is mere incident
to its manufacture-and not the direct
result of the manufactured cannot be
regarded as a regulation of interstate
commerce, and, therefore, congress can
not reach it, as being In restraint of trade
or otherwise.
But the state In which the manufacture
IS carried on can do so if its authorities
are able to show that it is in the nature
of a monopoly. and prevents all potential
competition. The Standard OIL monopoly
cannot be reached by any federal law It's
plans are too well laid. The man proba-
bly, does not live who is not in the pay
Of that monopoly who could prove one of
es contracts to be in restraint Of inter-
state commerce. No more is it possible to
successfully prosecute the telegraph mo-
nopoly in a state court. The telegraph is
an fundamentally of Interstate com
merce, and its regulation and control is
essentially a matter Of federal concern.
The manufacture and sale of given COM
modities, on the other hand, within a Civ
en- state or their manufacture within the
state and their contemplated sale out
side the states limits, are matters which,
IL the conditions attending them are in
regulation or restraint Of the states
trade, can be dealt with summarily. as
Involving monopoly.
1t will be well to keep this very essen
tial difference in mind for. IL the anti
trust movement is ever destined to de-
stroy the existing dangerous conspiracies,
there must be the most complete cooper.
alton among the several state authorities
and those of the general government.