The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-15
SHERMAN ACT.

SHERMAN ACT.
Congress (July 2, 1890 enacted that every
WEtiac, combination IN the form of n trust
q otherwise, or conspiracy In restraint Of
trade or commerce. among the several
Sales Is Illegal, providing punishments
i1d conferrlng jurisdiction upon Federal
tisruit courts ia prevent and restrain vio
lItcas Of the act II was commonly sup
POSED Of the time OF the passage Of this
ktence Of trusts that were engaged in
nplopolzing the production throughout the
GENTRY OF various articles Of general con
sumption, and the government shared IN
tbs view. Action " as begun by the United
siaies against what was known as the
sugar trust This was a corporation of the
State q New Jersey which had acquired
NE stock OF number Of sugar refining
operations In another State Ivy an OK
tiange q It's own shares for tho shares
d The vending stockholders of those com
Enes was formed, rs its charter
,atitef stated, for the purpose OF +'buyiug,
1inuIseturlng. refining aud selling sugar in
eitffent parts Of the county" The gov
nhments contention was that the purpose
y The purchase was to acquire a suhstap.
ial monopoly Of sugar refining. and as the
hodnet was for sale and distribution among
si states and to foreign countries, that
ae arrangement vas q violation Of the law
ufa Tue contract challenged was one
ss..Ar az Thu lIubl inc lttl OF LuE lllNe-
F9oeht fWneries hut one in the United
Mates thereby giving It the almost com
Fte monopoly Of a necessary OF life. Its
2luoi was w per cent OF the whole. The
4pleme court decided that MS the monopo-
va IN Inc production or manufacture OF
KY. ~ and Its sale or distribution among
" states and to foreign countries was but
.iosntal thereto 1t was not within the
EohMuon Of the law, saying that mann
Aoaflng, although it precedes commerce,
,,. ~. part OF IT, and that the act only
'I4hsl 90 restraints of commerce.
Jus distinction is easily understood when
~ = lseollected that commerce means III
lsouIse, transmission, communication,
W. operation; and commerce among the
TTA1es, me regulation of which rests In the
49, w slis intercourse shall be between or
Mnuiaeturng, on the other hand. does
~ imply or necessit0te intercourse among
\, o ssasss out implies situs or place for
~ y subsequent case the government de-
~, vSgpa 2 combination known as the Addy-
,l,ss !. ipe combination, but upon the ground
~ y was conspiracy among independent
fs,-satyeis OF piPe To restrain its sale aud
s, H .aioutlon among the States Tho COM
1874 W this ease operated directly upon
'4srslate commerce.
4 alsse cases seem to define the scope OF
Il .enl rust law and show how little there
i ,.s ,eit Tor the statute to operate upon.
M y. 20 eau your attention to this law,
ss,,i- SPIRIT OF criticism, hut TO show you
shy, now far It went and wnere it
rsssr-,9i,slitook "a invalidate all attempts to
dsssF 'i'se Interstate commerce, which in
iisvsn,..a among other things mentioned
%, HI tesHon, but 1t did not invaldate mo-
q seeS q production or regulate commerce
st,sIn,a way as TO free Il from the re.
M ~ such .monopolles indirectly impose
rf5r,s ~ ~ uld not say that these Indirect
b prer sp9l Interstate commerce could not
l5.tsnds5s "a ny congress. 1t Is earnestly
IN sS,. ny many that as It stands this
ia. Sl-,sgsss,es the limit OF Federal power in
paT,r h ,lee 400 But has not congress the
tstveeys y, ~ regulation TO protect commerce
49, Saie Corporations and eom1inntions en-.
~ :, y interstate trade. when their pur-
Igrb eueet Is to destroy the freedom Of
=. s.--seLState trade, and when their opera