The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-08-15
SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW.
Contention that 1t Covers the Case of
United States Steel Corporation.


To the Editor Of the indianapolis Journal:
1 hold the views about the United States
| Steel Corporation which you denounced this
morning (Aug. 1) as erroneous, and l have
| urged those views upon the public to the
extent OF my ability and opportunity. You
say that is done for political effect or
through ignorance. The political charge
falls In my case. because l am not an
a~spirant for any office, elective or appoint
I've, and am not even allied with either
party, though frankly wishful to be able
again to vote regularly with the Repub-
licans. Remains only the charge of ig-
norance; and that is mistaken, for 1 have
studied the question carefully and have
got my opinions upon the legal propositions
first hand from the highest authority. If l
err I have been deceived. and the Supreme
Court of the United States, in a unani-
nous opinion, has deceived me.
First-My proposition is that a combi-
nation of manufacturers, such as this cor
poration. is amenable to the Sherman anti
| trust law when ii restraints be-
tween States. as this corporation restraints
I'm iron and stel products be-
tween New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
for instance. The case against the sugar
companies, decided Jan. p, 1895 O56 l.. S.,
u. involved four refneries. all In the State
of Pennsylvania. which were being COM
bined with refineries in other States. but
there was no showing that the product of
any refinery was shipped or sold outside
the State of manufacture, and the Supreme
J Court refused TO supply by Inference the
lack Of allegation or proof of so essential
a fact. This decision was much misquoted
and misunderstood, and doubtless led to the
- Il -
Cleveland's message of Dec. z. 1896. But
when, afterward, the fact omitted in the
sugar companies case was supplied by allie
CONTRA Sns prI In the ssSseonen Was sa suite
combination of manufacturers of iron pipe
was held to be within this law when it
was shown to restrain directly the sale of
the products in States other than the
State of manufacture. the court saying:
IF. therefore. an agreement or combina-
tlon directly restraints not alone the manu-
f~acture, but the purchase, sale or exchange
OF the manufactured commodity among
the provisions of the statute 1.-THE Sher-
man antitrust law. Addyston Pipe and
Steel Company VS.. United States. It's u.
And since this decision. rendered Dec. 4.
1899. no court or law officer. and very few
reputable lawyers, have commended that
such combinations as the Stel Corporation
do not restrain interstate commerce in the
wares they produce in one State and mar
| ket in others.
Second-To escape the law il Is some
times c~ontended that such a corporation,
because it is a corporation. is not within
the terms of this statute, which denounces
every contract. combination in the form
of trust or otherwise. or conspiracy. in
restraint of trade or among the
OF Illinois disposed of this contention in
Harding VS.. American Glucose Company.
Besides this decision, which is certainly
respectable, reason and the form of our
government oppose any such contention.
In the AddystOn Pipe and Steel Company
case the Supreme Court pointed out that
the prohibited combinations regulated in
t~erstate. to some extent and so
assumed to do what only Congress may
lawfully do. An apt illustration is afforded
by the power to coin money, which the
national government alone possesses. No
eagles or double eagles, or other money,
nor can any State empower a corporation
here in point, no State can regulate inter-
state commerce., or. since the Sherman
sa a. Jaw empo"er any corporation
its creature 10 offend against this act of
Congress. which is part of the supreme law
OF the land.
L do not think the Supreme Court of the
United States or the Supreme Court of Illi-
nois has deceived me I'm this particular. and
must remain in my opinion, and continue
10 prOmulgate the same, SO far as / can.
that the United States Steel Corporation is
an unlawful combination under the Sher-
man antitrust law, which, by prescribing
fine and imprisonment, makes IL a criminal
conspiracy; and that. to use the words OF
the statute, IL is the duty of the several
district attorneys of the United States, i'm
their respective districts. under the direc-
ton OF the attorney general, to institute
proceedings In equity to prevent and re-
strain such violations
This corporation also offends by usurping
some OF the police power of the State OF
Indiana over the manufacture OF and local
commerce in tin plate and other products.
That o1ense IL subject 10 judicial preven-
ton and restraint in proper proceedings
I'm the state courts. And IL the attorney
general OF the United States should do his
duty, or the proper officers In the several
States should do their duty, L cannot be-
lieve otherwise than that this corporation
and others like IL would be made to obey
the law. The result would undoubtedly
be increase In respect for law. and would
accord with the older Republican teachings.
LEW WALLACE, JR.
Indianapolis. Aug. IL.