The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-10-15

 If 1t be true that State can authorize | or permit monopoly of production with | in Its borders because 1t has the power | over the production as such, although 1t | indirectly affects interstate commerce. | may not the United States regulate in- terstate commerce over which II mas ex- l elusive control. even though 1t indirectly | affects production, over which, as such, | 1t has control?
 | If Congress under It's power to regu- late interstate commerce may utterly de- l stroy a combination and forfeit it's prop | erty In interstate transit, as the Sherman | act provides. because 1t restraints such | commerce, 1t seems reasonable to say | that it can in the exercise of the same l power deny to @ combination whose life | 1t can not reach the privilege of engag- | ing in interstate commerce except upon | such terms as Congress may prescribe to | protect that commerce from restraint | Such a regulation would operate directly | upon commerce and only indirectly upon | the instrumentalities and operations of
 Alarming Possibilities. If the Sherman Act exhausts the power | of Congress over monopolies, the Amer | ican people find themselves hopelessly impotent. facing situation frausht with | the most alarming possibilities. with which neither the Federal nor State gov l ernments can deal
 While States may regulate the produc- l ton and sale of articles within their own borders, at these borders their authority | ceases.
 Jefferson in his letter of March 15, 17ss, | to Madison. says of the Constitution This instrument forms us into one State
 as to certain objects and gives us | legislative and executive body Tor those l objects"
 One hundred years later the Supreme Court of the Unted States declared that | in the matter of interstate commerce the United States are but one country, and | are and must be subject to one system of regulations. and not to a multitude of systems
 These are Illuminating and vital state ments of the original purpose. in founding this Government. to provide for national control of intercourse, and of the extent of the national power over it, These statements were made. respectively. by that great leader of the constructive pe- riod who was most jealous for the reserv- ed rights of the States against the en- croachment of the new national soyer- eighty, and by one of the wisest judges who have interpreted the Constitution'S purposes and meaning In the light or such statements. then, can it be possible that the people of the United States. feel. ing the pressure of undoubted evils, ate nevertheless totally powerless? Is It true that although they know with growing certainty the nature of the wrong ana are seeking remedy, the Constitution as It stands does not permit them to pursue 1t; that amendment to that charter is first necessary: that the power of Congress does not now extend over detriments in turing the entire body of citizens in their most Yltal concerns, because tHeet utt- rments originate in the States-although | the States in the aggregate, and by the | cooperation which is essential do noth. | ing effective to remove them? do not | believe that we find ourselves so help | less. Whe nthe currents of monopoly ! evil obviously flow cut over State lines | and cover the country, not only entering ! out largely filling the channels of inter \ state and foreign trade. 1t will not do U | say that the evil is beyond the national | reach, and that because the first step ! which may lead to the evil Is production, l which must have fixed situs within a l State, the States alone may deal with 1t. If the States are a nation for some l purposes as Jefferson said, with full leg
 slative and executive power, and ex-
 elusive regulation of interstate commerce | s one of these purposes, as the Supreme
 Court has decided. 1t would seem mon
 3trous to urge that Congress and the Ex-
 ecutive under its authority are powerless l and must sit idly by and see the chan l lels Of interstate commerce made use of l to the injury of the people by monopo-
 istic combinations.
 Creates a Dilemma.
 Plainly the power must reside some
 where, either in the nation or in the |
 States reservations; but the effect of |
 present doubts is to create dilemma |
 under which, apparently. all power van
 ishes, the States saying, Some of us do | | and some of us do not permit monopolis- |
 tic production; that is our concern, but |
 when the products cross our borders the |
 
 I matter of national regulation and con
 'rol; and the nation appearing to reply, | l I can deal with commerce passing be- | | yond any one State, but effective regu- | | atIon here may indirectly interfere with | | production. and that Is State matter | | which I may not touch. And so the na- l | tional and local sovereignties halt and | the delictum escapes. The Supreme l l Court has characterized the power of I Congress to regulate interstate com |
 merce. like the related and sometimes f
 and absolute; 1t has defined this com l merce in language which Is inclusive of | l all phases of interstate intercourse, ex- | l change and trade; It has merely said | that production, under an initial phase | l of modern consultations which primarily, | | at least. regards production alone, is not | 1 such commerce I do not think it can |
 be said that the court has gohe beyond | l this point.
 Conceding that the present law is not | | effective throughout the situation. we | come to the final alternative: May not | l Congress, under the existing conStitu- | ional grants, amend and extend the law | | and thus remedy its defects and so ef- l fectively regulate national and foreign | 1 commerce as to prevent the stifling or l competition, the regulating of output and l pTice, and the restraining of national and international trade? If the answer l 70 this question should be In the aftirm1- l tive, a second question follows: How | might Congress 50 amend the present | law? I do not scruple to say that in my | judgment the more a thoughtful mini | reflects on the first question, the more | unnesitatingly will an affirmative answc | be returned.
 That regulation by Congress in this | way would indirectly or remotely affect | production would be no bar. The very | point of the Sugar Trust case was that
 a consolidated scheme of product )a
 might lead to commerce or might in- | directly oc remotely affect commerce, but
 did not for that reason invoke the Fed l cral power over commerce; and the H.
 lustration from the converse of the s!tu
 ation is significa It on the point just | stated. Congress under this power prevents the l i,nportatio1 or transportation of articles
 deemed injurious to the general welfarS- l Thus the laws subject the movement of | explosives to safeguards and burdens, | absolutely excludS impure literature anu
 diseased cattle. convicts and contract la
 bor, and scrutinizes and prevents or
 checks many foreign and lnters tate mova-
 mCnts, throughout the entire field of ip
 ternationai and national intercourse. In
 the interest of all the people, on grounds
 of commercial. hyglenic. or ethical pol
 icy. Who shall set limits now, in ad-
 vance of a carefully framed and judi
 cially tested law to the competence of Congress to regulate commerce in the
 way suggested in the exercise of the l legislative wisdom and in the wide dis | cretion confided to 1t? Who shall say | that the power of Congress does not
 extend so far? l think it does l am quite sure no one can now say that it does not.
 l iS