The Minneapolis journal., 1903-04-10
j lMIVNFAPOLIS DRY GOODS CO.

|
panies, and as the stock owes its being
to the laws of those states. and as each
state has forbidden the consolidation OF
competing and parallel lines of railroad
therein and has likewise prohibited any
consolidation of the stock and fran
chises" Of such roads, the contention last
mentioned Is entitled to little consider
alton In the case at bar --,-a ~ ..5-
But waving and ignoring this sugges-
ton, the al gument advanced in behalf OF
the defendants is met and answered, SO
far as this court is concerned, by the de-
cision in Addyston Pipe and Steel com
pany VS.. United States. lis U. S., 22S, ~
where it is said inter ALA. under this
grant of power to congress (the power TO
regulate commerce between the several
states and with foreign nations). that
body. in our Judgment, may enact such
legislation as shall declare void and pro-
hibit the performance of any contract
between individuals or corporations where
the natural and direct effect OF such /
| contract will be, when carried out, to
directly, and not as a mere incident to
other and innocent purposes, regulate. to
any substa ntial extent, interstate COM
mcrce We do not assent to the |
correctness of the proposition that the |
| constitutional guaranty of liberty to the
| individual to enter into private contracts
| limits the power of congress and prevents |
it from legislating on the subject of con- I
| tracts of the class mentioned* '. 1t
| has been held that the word liberty,
as used in the constitution was not to be
confined to the mere liberty of persons,
but included. among Others right to en-
| ter into certain classes of contracts for
the purpose of. enabling the citizen to
carry on his business y.
Liberty In Private Contracts.
But it has never been. and in our opin-
ion ought not to be held, that the word
included the right to enter into private
contracts upon all subjects, no matter
what their nature and wholly irrespective,
among other things, Of the fact that they
would. if performed. result in the regula-
tion of interstate commerce, and in viola
tion of an act of congress upon that sub
ject.
. The provision of the constitution does
not, as we believe. exclude congress from
legislating with regard to contracts of the
above nature, While in the exercise of its
constitutional right to regulate commerce
among the states.
On the contrary, we think the provision
regarding the liberty of the citizen is to
some extent limited by the commerce
clause of the constitution and that the
power Of congress to regulate interstate
commerce comprises the right to enact a
law prohibiting the citizen from entering
into those private contracts which indi-
: rectly. remotely, incidentally and collater-
ally regulate to a greater less degree
commerce among the states.
We cannot so enlarge the scope of the
l language of the constitution regarding the
I liberty of the citizen as to hold that it
includes or that twas intended to in
I clude a right to make contract which
4 in fact restrained and regulated inter-
: state commerce notwithstanding con-
gress, proceeding under the constitutional
t provision giving to it the power to regu-
Il late that commerce, had prohibited such
t contracts These observations, as a
f matter Of course, preclude further con-
/. troversy over the power Of congress to
y limit to some extent the right to make
| contra when enacting laws for the
S regulation of commerce between the
:, states.
:, Action Not Too Late.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants fur
a ther contend as follows: That the anti
Y trust, act was not intended to include Of
: prohibit combinations looking to the
: virtual consolidation of parallel and com
J. peting lines of railroad altho such com
l. bination operates to stifle competition
h that no relief can be granted to the gov
l. ernment in this instance because tn
combination or conspiracy Of which i
ID complains has accomplished it's purpose
it to-wit, the organization Of the Securitie
rs company and the .lodgment of the major
e, ity of the stock of the two railroads il
le it's hands before the bill was filed; an
III finally that the combina tion proven wa
at one formed in aid of commerce an
II not to restrain it"; in other words, tha
OF it was one formed to enlarge the vol
n- ume of Interstate traffic and thus benef
the public.
a. The court cannot assent to either {
as these propositions The first we thin
ry is clearly untenabe for the reasons al
r. ready stated and fully disclosed in tn
n decisions heretofore cited.
on Concerning the second contention, "
NJ observe that it would be a novel. not
he say absurd Interpretation of the anti-tru!
nd act to hold that after an, unlawful comb
IL nation is formed and has acquired tt
So power which it had no right to aCquir
ire namely, to restrain commerce by SUI
pressing competition and Is proceeding
use it. and execute the, purpose for whic
: J / the combination was formed, it must
Il left in. possession of the power that
w. has acquired, with full freedom to exc
cid else It. = =, :@f 49,
list Obviously the act, when fairly inte
re- preted. will bear mo such constructio
Ike Congress aimed to destroy the power
is place any direct restrain on intersta
trade or commerce., when by any CONT
1t nation or conspiracy. formed by eth
the natural or artificial persons. such a pow
'ck had been acquired; and the governme
5ht may intervene and demand relief as W.
ne after the combination is fully organic
the as while it is In process of formation
-l In this instance. as we have alrea
said, the Securities company made it's
y a partysFtO a combination in restraint