Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-04-27
AGAINST THE TRUSTS
An Important Contention to
Be Tested.
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
WHAT CONSTITUTES A RE-
sTRAINT OF TRADE.
Supreme Court to Decide If Monopoly
of Production is Restraint
Of Commerce.

1t is quite likely that an effort to extend
the practical scope of the Sherman anti
trust law will be made after the bureau of
corporations of the newly established De-
partment of Commerce and Labor has suf-
fcient data to warrant it in referring
cases to the Attorney General for prosecu-
ton. In the Knight case. which was de-
cided by the Supreme Court of the United
States. there was an alleged monopoly in
the production of sugar commonly known
as the sugar trust" and that decision
will have a very important influence in
guiding the Department of Justice in its
course toward cases that may be brought
to it for prosecution. That case, in many
respects, will involve the same elements Of
law that will bear upon the cases affecting
Industrial organizations that may be called
to the attention of the Attorney General for
action in the future
In the Knight case the court held that
the creation of a monopoly IN production
does not necessarily and directly restrain
commerce among the states. The court
took the view that the production of an
article in a state was subject to state con-
troll and that the Sherman act relating to
interstate commerce would be violated
only when there was restraint of trade In
the Interstate commerce itself.
Monopoly in Manufacture.
While this was the decision of the court
in the Knight case, there was omission
in that case to submit evidence to show the
manner in which interstate commerce may
be restrained directly and very surely by
a monopoly in the manufacture of an ar
ticle of commerce. This very point is re-
garded as of the most widespread interest
in the treatment of cases of industrial or
CARNATIONS against which suit may be
brought under the provisions of the Sher-
man act. The decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the knight case very
carefully worded, SO far as it has any
bearing on this question. That decision
gave the opinion of the court that the
creation of a monopoly in production does
not necessarily and directly restrain COM
merce among the states.
In this way the court left as an open
question whether or not 1t is possible to
restrain interstate commerce by means OF
a monopoly in the manufacture of an ar
ticle of commerce. In some case to be
brought by the Attorney General, upon
evidence submitted to him from the bureau
of corporations this very point will be
brought out prominently. There are very
able lawyers who think it will be possible
to prove to the court that a restraint of
interstate commerce may be brought about
in that way, and that 1T will be only neces-
sary in very many cases to prove monop-
oily in the production of an article to prove
that interstate commerce is restrained
Widespread Importance.
1t can readily be seen that should that
contention be maintained by the court its
bearing on the general subject of monopoly
would be widespread. 1t would give the
Sherman antitrust law a scope far beyond
the limitation that has pertained to it In
the past in the view of counsel of corpora
tons.
While it is quite likely that the Depart
ment of Justice will in some case seek to
maintain this view, and to have the United
States Supreme Court approve it in de-
ciSion, that view will be vigorously contro-
verted on the part of the counsel for cor
porations They will seek to show that a
manufactured article is not affected by the
Sherman antitrust law until it actually
becomes object of interstate commerce
In other words. they will maintain that the
law will take no cOgniZance of the product
or article until it begins to be commerce of
the kind specified. and that, whatever has
taken place In connection with the article
before 1t becomes such commerce, 1t can in
no way affect it's consideration under the
law.
The Merger Case.
The recently decided merger case is re-
garded by students of antitrust legislation
and litigation as a case of unusual SIM
plicity. They say that too much in the way
of antitrust decisions must not be ex-
pected because of the action of the court IN
the merger case Ihat was so simple and
palpable restraint of interstate commerce
they were not surprised that all four Of the
judges sitting on it came to the same con-
cluSion.
But when a case is brought affecting an
industrial enterprise there will be very diff
ferent legal points to decide. The one ques-
tion Of connecting a monopoly of produc-
ton with a restraint of interstate COM
merce alone is one requiring the utmost in
genuity on the part of lawyers. There Is
hA
fought to the utmost and that learned coun-
sci would exhaust their efforts to controvert
it.
The position of the court is such that If
this contention is maintained it will only
be after the restriction of interstate COM
merce has been carefully followed from the
production of the article until it actually
begins to be moved as an object of inter.
state cOnmerce