The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-04-10

That That L 70 say. by what has been done the
power has been. acquired land prosSion
made for mantainnr ~ e sn spspsrsss c who
lines OF railroad, and competition. We think;
than il now Is under and by force Of the ex-
istng aran cement II the two railroad com
panles were consolidated unaer d s'"so
charter
Is THE NEW JERSEY cHARTYR a SHIELD?
It Is manifest. therefore, that the New
Jersey charter Is about the only shield vnich
the defendants can interpose between them-
'' The T &nH which led to the ACQUISITION
Of That charter would seem 70 nave peen
that while as ndiyidYss the ,BB sG%eifsrs
Competing and parallel roads In the hands I'd
Elm or them The power W to operate the roads
In harmony and stine com petition, YET tnst
the same persons might create a purely ne
could neither think nor act. except as they
directed, and by. placing the same stock u
the name. Of such artificial being accomplish
The manifest unseasona bleness Of such a
proposition and the grave c9nsequenc ..s
to assume that II must be unsound, especially
when We reflect that the law. as administered
By sS y e equity Y tSs az
than upon the particular devices or means
far as the New Jersey charter Is concerned,
the question, broadly stated. which the Court
has whether r. Sefsat he viii
OF the National Legislature, as expressed
in a law relating TO Interstate TRACE sno
commerce over which Congress has absolute
Presam ptiyely at Least no charter fTaRRt sy
by State Is INTENDED ~ the stare So 10 nase
and In the present instance It Is clear that the
State Of New jersey did not intend to o., grant an
nounced by Congress as unlawful namely.
a combination comforting the power 70 re-
strain interstate commerce might BE formed co
organized expressly declares that three or
9Ts Of the act sna LEONE
ton forany lawful purpose LAWS OF New
jersey. 1889; p; az ,ors,v ner,unctorv.
II means. obviously. that whatever powers
the incorporates saw ft to assume they
mss oqd aRd %ods IN
tion operate. therefore. Us g limitation upon
all the powers enumerated in the articles
motors OF the Securities Company: that.
however extensive and comprehensive tnelr
may sseM Wo to
so as to set at defiance any statute lagfully
enacted by the Congress Of the United states
any statute vo law zee ,I ~ to your
powers.
THE POWER OF coNohEss SUPREME.
But aside from this view Of the situation.
II the State OF New Jersey had undertaken
to invest the incorporators Of the Securities
Company with the power to do acts In the
corporate name which would operate to re-
strain interstate commerce and for that
reason could not be done by them acting
as an association Of individuals then We
have no doubt that such a grant would have
been void under the plans OF the Antitrust
act. or at least that the charter could not
be permitted to stand in the way OF the en-
forcement OF that act
The power OF Congress over interstate
commerce is supreme. farreaching. and sc-
knowedges no limitations other than such as
are prescribed in the Constitution itself
Gibbons VS.. Ogden. 0 Wheat 1, 1917: County Of
Champion VS.. Aies Z, s.. decided Feb. 20. isJaj
No legislation on the part OF state can cur. cur
OF repeated decisions no one can deny that
it Is a legitimate exercise Of the power in uues-
nor artificial persons shall combine TO con-
spire In any form whatever to place restraints
on interstats trade or commerGe; United
States VS.. Trans-Missouri Freight Associa-
ton, iSs L. D. 200 United States Va. Joint
franc Association III U. y. Gas: Addison
Pipe and steel Company vs., United states
II il urged. however. that sucha oonbi-
nation Of adverse interests as was formed and
and not prohibited by the Antitrust act be-
cause such restraint upon Interstate trade or
as ana hsSee sha. the se%
bination il not one Of that character. which
the Congress of the Inited States can law
UPON upon to sustain the contention:. United States
VS.. z. c. Knight COMPANY, $50 Y. :. J.: Hopkins
vs.. United States III L. S. $40: Anderson vs..
L. s. III U. - 60t.
HOW INTERSTATE COMMERCE Is AFFECTED
1t Is pertinent. therefore. 10 inquire in
what way the existing combination that
has been formed does AFFECT Interstate COM
a single corporate entity. OF. more accurately.
TO a few men acting III concert aud IN its
name and under coysr oil its charter: the
tation that are owned by two competing
and parallel railroads engaged In Interstate
dictate every Important act which the two
companies may do, 10 compel them TO act
in harmony in establishing interstate rates
and generally to prescribe the policy which
they shall pursue
mater, h d not we .nink hv w6cb , bow many
are accomplished or through what channels;
the power was not only acquired by the com:
Il operates directly on interstate commerce.
Notwithstanding the manner OF its exercise,
by controlling the means OF transportation:
which persons and commodities are carried,
as well as by fixing the price TO be charged
''i The cases citsd above and on which reliance
II placed to sustain the view that the restraint
imposed IL merely indirect, remote. incl
dental or collateral, are not revelant. for, as
was fully explained In Addyst Pipe and
Steel Company VS.. L. s. u15 L. 3. al, 2ss, $40,
2@3) one OF these cases ~. \. vs.. Z. G.. Knight
COMPANY v dealt only with combination witnih
a State TO- obtain a practical monopoly OF the
manufa cture OF sugar. and IL was held that the
combination only related TO manufacture. and
not TO commerce among The States or with
foreign nations; that the fact that an article
was manufactured for export to another
State did not make IL an article Of Interstate
commerce before transportation had been
control: and that the effect OF the combina-
ton then under consideration, on interstate
commerce, was at most only incidental and
INT while commenting on it, previous
decision in L 8. VS., z. G. Knight Company, the
Court took occasion TO say. In Addyston Pipe
and Steel Company Vs. u. 8. u75 L. =. 2<el, that
when a contract IL made for the sale and de-
livery Of an article In another State, the trans
action H. one Of int erstate commerce, alt hough
the vendor has also agreed to manufacture
control and monopolize such transactions
would be In restraint Of interstate commerce
In the other cases Hopkins vs.. the L
s. and Anderson vs. the u, 81 10 was
held that the business OF the members
Of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange
which was under consideration by the court
was not interstate commerce and that tie
act did not AFFECT them. and that, even II
thew were so affected. the particular agree
ment Which was involved did not operate as
a restraint Of interstate commerce.