The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-10-15

was for sale and distribution among thI | States and to foreign countries, that the arrangement was a violation of the law cited. The contract challenged was on. vesting in the trust the last of the in- dependent refneries but one in the United States, thereby giving it the almost com plete monopoly of a necessary of life. Its control was 9S per cent. of the whole The Supreme Court decided that as the monopoly was in the production or man ufacture of sugar and its sale or distri- button among the States and to foreign countries was but incidental thereto 1t was not within the prohibition of the law saying that manufacturing although 1t precedes commerce, is not part of 't and that the act only applied to restraints of commerce.
 Commerce Between States.
 This distinction Is easily understood when 1t is recollected that commerce means intercourse, transmission, commu- nication, transportation; and commerce among the States, the regulation of which rests in the Federal power, means, as the term implies, that this intercourse shall be between or among the States
 Manufacturing. on the other hand, does not imply or necessitate intercourse among the States, but implies a stus or place for its operations.
 In a subsequent case the Government destroyed a combination known as the Addyston Pipe Combination. but upon the ground that 1t was a conspiracy among independent producers of pipe to restrain its sale aad distribution among the States. The combination in this case op- erated directly upon interstate com merce.
 These cases seem to define the scope of the antitrust law and show how little there is now left for the statute to op- crate upon. It is not enough, 1t seems, that a trust or corporation owning cor porations exists, or that 1t is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, for its mere engaging in commerce Is not prohibited. or that 1t monopolizes pro- duction throughout the country, or that
 it is formed to restrain or monopolize business within a State or destroys com petition in buying or selling within a State. or that by any of these things it indirectly affects interstate commerce with a practical restraint or monopoly, to bring the corporation or its particular transaction within the emphatic clauses or under the drastic penalties of the anti trust law. What seems to be necessary Is to establish by legal proof in court a combination for the direct monopoliZing or restraining of what is strictly inter- state commerce, and to prove this against ! combinations whose affairs are conducted upon the best legal advice as to what Is | and what Is not obnoxious to the law, by methods secret or ingeniOusly contrived l to avoid the letter of the law.
 | want to call your attention to thus l law. not in a spirit of criticism. but "a | show you clearly how far it went and | where lt stopped.
 | It undertook 10 mValidate all attempts | to mOnopoIize interstate commerce, which i includes, among other things mentioned, l transportation. but it did not invahdate
 monopolies or production or regulate con- | merce in such a way as to free 1t from | the restraints such mOnopolies indirectly
 impose. The court did not say that these | indirect effects upon interstate commerce l could not be prevented by Congress. IL
 is earnestly contended by many that as | it stands this law eXp-esses the limit oi | Federal power in that direction. But
 has not Congress the power by it's regu-
 lation to protect commerce between the
 corporations and combinations engaged
 in interstate trade. when their purpose
 or effect is to destroy the freedom of sucf
 interstate trade and when their opera
 tions are besides injurious to the genera
 public?
 Regulation under such a power would
 not interfere with mere production, o
 the power of hhe State over production