The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-10-15

|
tions exists or that 1t s engaged In in
| terstate or foreign commerce. for II.
| mere engaging in commerce Is not pro
| hibitcd, or that 1t monopoiZes produc
| tion throughout the country. or that 4
| Is formed to restrain or monopolize bust
ness within a state, or that by any o
| these things II Indirectly affects inter
| state commerce with u practical restrain
| or monopoly. tn bring the corporation oi
It's particular transaction within the EN-
| nhatic clauses or under the drastl,
| penalties of the antitrust law. Wha
| seems to be necessary Is to establish by
| legal proof In court combination for th'
| direct monopoliZing or restraining o.
| what Is strictly interstate commerce
| ana TO prove this against combinations
| whose affairs are conducted upon Tho
| best legal advice as to what Is and wha
| Is not obnoxious TO the law, ny methou'
| secret or ingehions'v contrived to avoit
want 10 cali Your attention to thi.
| law not In II spirit of criticism. but tc
| snow you clearly now far 1t went nht
whore 1T stopped.
II undertook to invalidate all attempts
| To monopoliZc interstate commerce
| which includes, among other thins
| mentioned transportation, but II did not
| invalidate monopolies of production oi
regulate commerce in such way ms to
free 1t from the restraints such mollopo-
| lies indirectly impose. The court did not
say mat these indirect c1ectS upon inter-
state commerce could noi be prevented
| by congress Ii Is earnestly contendeu
ny many thht as 1t STANDS lhiS itiw eN-
presses lhe limit oi Federal power III thHt
direction. but mas not congress the
power by It's regulation to protect COM
m"rce between the states from peinS re-
strained by state corporations ana COM
when their purpose or erect is To ue-
StroN IN" freedom OF such interstate
trade. ana when their operations are pe-
SIDES injurious to the general puplic|
Regulation under such IL power would
not interfere with mere production, or
the power OF the state over productloil,i "
would only aifect them remotely ana III
cidehialiy' Just as a monopoly 'hat pro-
ducrS all or most of certain Inc OF
goods affcctS commerce indirectly.
A Pomod,, prorosod
IT II ID" true that state can authoilZe
or permit a monopoly oi production
Wllillh ltS poruerS because IL mas in'
power over production as sucl' athouSh
1t Indirectly affects interstate commerce.
may not ,hc hlleu states rcSula'e 'h'er-
state commerce over whicil II mas eNciu-
SlNe control even 'houEh IL ii'oirectiS
anects production over which' as such'
II mas no cohtroi!
u congress, under us power l" reEu-
latc interstate commerce. may utterly
destroy a comninatioh ana lorieit lS
property In interstate transit as the
sherman act PROVIDES, because IL rc-
StliilnS Such commerce. II seems reaSoh-
aDlc 10 say lhat IL can III lhe eNtr'lSe
ol> III" same power uehH 10 II coiioiila-
tioh whose lie IT can not rea'h lhe
privilege or engaging III interstate COM
L.
SfeSS may prescribe TO protect that conf
merce from restraint. Such Il regulation
WOULD operate Directly upon commerce.
;ihu ohiH indirectly upon the ilsti"iieh-
tallt'rs ana operations or production.
II the sherman act eNhaustS the power
OF congress over monopolles. the Amerl-
can people ma themselves hopeleSs'F I'M
potent lacihG SITUATION lIauSht WIN
the most alarming po"SipilitleS WIN
which neither the FEDERAL nor state gov
erhmehts can deal
\ 90 not pelIeNe lhat we Hhu ourselves
so helpless. w neh the currents OF
monopoly cNli obviously HOW out over
slhte INES ana cover the country not
only entering but largely flllng tue
chahnelS "l interstate ans T"felsh tlade'
II VIII not do To say that me eVil Is
beEohu lile hiitiohal fehcI' ana 'i'at pe-
cause me irst step "hl?n ma! ieao 10
lhe 'Nli IL produt'ioii. winch i,"S' nave
a hNed Sltus Wllhln Il State' IN" s'a'cS
alone may zeal with IT.
t"ncedinS tili't the present law Is .hol
effective lhrouShoul the Sl'uition' we
come 10 lhc liiiii ''i'er'iallNe: May not
congress- uilder the eNlStihE cohsli'u-
tionai grants. amend ana extend the law
ana mus remedy lis ue1ects ana so ell
ie'liNeiH regulate ''alioi"l anu ioreiSil
commerce as 10 prevent w" Stlli''S oi
'ompet''ion' me res'lla,lng OF OUTPUT
ana price. ana the restraining OF hatlohai
ana international trade! IL the answer 10
inns question shohld DE IN the anirna-
1--WE S"'o''" HuoS'.oii loi'o"S' iioW
hlSn' congress amend the preSe''t INV :
! DO not scfuplc To say thiit III my
judgment the more thouShtlul NINA
rcllectS on lhe HtSt question: 'ie more
ulhcSl'hulSE VIII an ailirm''tFe ah-
SWer De returned.
lhat regulation hN congress III lhiS
way would indirectly or remotely aifect
production would be no bar, The very
point OF the sugar trust case was that Il
consolidated scheme OF production might
lead To commerce, or might indirectly on
remotely AFFECT commence, nut ana not
FOR that reason invoke the federal power
over comm, rec: and the illustration from
the converse of the situation Is SiSniii-
cant ON the point lust stated.
Congress under TINS power prevents the
importation or transportation ol artlcIeS
deemed injurious to the general vel
fare. Thus the law subjects the move
ment Of explosives to safeguards and
burdens, absolutely excludes impure lit
erature ana diseased cattle cohNictS ana
contract laoor, ana Sctu.ihl|eS ana pre-
s,,,o n,ovnmnmt. throuYhnnt the entire
field of international am. national inter-