Arizona republican., 1902-10-15

that a consolidated scheme of produc- l tion might lead to commerce, or might indirectly or remotely affect commerce, but did not for that reason invoke the federal power over commerce; and the illustration from the converse of the situation is significant on the point just stated.
 WHAT CONGRESS MAY DO. Congress under this power prevents the importation or transportation of articles deemed injurious to the gen. eral welfare. Thus the laws subject the movement of explosives to safe guards and burdens, absolutely ex- cludes impure literature and diseased cattle, convicts and contract labor, and scrutinizes and prevents or checks many foreign and interstate move ments, throughout the entire field of international and national intercourse, in the interest of all the people, on grounds of commercial, hygenic, or eth- ical policy. Who shall set limits now, in advance of a carefully framed and judicially tested law. to the compet- ence of congress to regulate commerce in the way suggested in the exercise of the legislative wisdom and in the wide
 
 say that the power of congress does am quite sure no one can now say that t does not.
 Every constitutional question is az open ere until it is authoritatively closed by a decision of the supreme court"
 MT. Knox took up the case of the ct siderable length.
 On the subject of the power remain ing in congress to cope with the ques- tion of the trusts he said:
 "The extent to which legislative con- trol over commercial activities should be exercised is, of course. a question for legislative wisdom. We have the experience of the other nations to guide us in determining how far the delicate and mysterious rules of trade can be interfered with by positive statutes without injury. That experi- ence teaches us that the least interfer- ence consistent with the preservation of essential rights should exist Arbi- trary regula tions that restrain free in- tercourse are usually found to be un- wise.
 Primarily it is for the congress to de- eide whether it has the power and whether and to what extent it will ex- ecute it-what character of restraints whether all or those only which are un- reasonable and injurious shall fall un- der the ban, whether legislation in the first instance should extend to all com merce in articles of vital importance to tn people. The time never was when the English-speaking people permitted the articles necessary for their exis- tence to be monopolized or controlled. and all devices to that end found con- demnation in the body of their laws. The great English judges pronounced that such manifestations of human avarice required no statute to declare their unlawfulness, that they were crimes against common law-that is, against common right
 "It is difficult to improve upon the great unwritten code known as the common law. Under it's salutary guarantees and restraints the English speaking people have attained their wealth and power. It condemns mon- opoly, and contracts in restraint of trade as well. The distinction, how ever, between restraints that are reas- onable in view of all the circumstances and those which are unreasonable, is recognized and has been followed in this country by the courts.
 This distinction makes a rule that r1ay be practically applied, and pre- serves the rational mean between un- | restrained commerce and the absolute | freedom of contract"