The Minneapolis journal., 1903-04-10
STRONG DECISION
IN MERGER CASE
Continued from Page Sixteen.

can curtail or interfere with its exercise,
and in view of repeated decisions, no
one can deny that it is legitimate eX-
erclse or the power in question for cons
gress to say that neither natural nor arti-
f1cial persons shall combine to conspire in
any form whatever to place restraints on
interstate trade or commerce. Uniteda
States vs. Trans Missouri Freight asso-
citation, 166 U. s. 200; United States VS..
Joint Traffic association, I'll U. s. sos;
Addystone Pipe and Steel company VS..
United States, It's U. S. I'll. -
1t is urged, however that such COM
bination of adverse interests as was
formed and has been heretofore described,
was lawful and not prohibited by the anti
trust act, because. such restraint upon. in
terstate trade Or commerce. If any, as it |
imposes is made Indirect collateral and
remote. and hence that the combination
is not one of that character which the
congress of the United States can lawfully
forbid. ..E.
The following cases are relied upon to
sustain the contention: United States VS..
r. c. knight company, 1856 u. S. /; Hop
kins Vs. United States. III u. s., 376; An
derson VS.. United States, III U. s.. 6o4.
Effect on Interstate Commerce.
1t is pertinent therefore, to inquire in
what way the existing combination that
has been formed does affect interstate
commerce. 1t affects it, we think. by CIV
ing to single corporate entity or, more
accurately, to a few men acting In concert
and In it's name and under cover OF its
charter the power to control all the means
of transportation that are owned by two
competing and, parallel railroads, engascu
in interstate commerce.; In other WordS,
the power to dictate every important act,
which the two companies may 90; TO
compel them to act in harmony In estab-
n IA g carriage
freight and passengers and generally to
prescribe the policy which they shall pur-
sue.
It matters not, we think, thru how
many hands the orders come by which
these aims are to be accomplished or
e through what channels; the power was
not only acquired by the combination.
but it is effectually exercised, and it op-
crates directly interstate commerce,
Notwithstanding the manner OF Its eNer-
T cise by controlling the means or trans
portation. to-wit the cars, engines and
railroads by which persons and commodl-
ties are carried. as well as by fixing the
price to be charged for such carriage.
The cases cited above and on which re-
lance Is placed to sustain the view that
the restraint imposed is merely indirect.
remote. Incidental or collateral. are not
relevant for. as was fully explained In
Addystone Pipe and. Steel company vs..
United States. 175 Z. S. eli, 23s. o40. 243.
One OF these cases Omitted States VS.. Il.
G. Knight company dealt only with
combination within z, state to obtain a
practical monopoly of the manufacture. OF
sugar. and it was held that the combna-
ton only related to manufacture and not
to commerce among the states or with
foreign nations; that the fact that an ar
ticle was manufacture for export to an
other state. did not make it an article OF
interstate commerce before transportation
had been begun or necessarily Subject II
to federal control: and that the effect O
the combination then under consideration
on interstate commerce. was at most only
incidental and collateral. o.. --~
But while commenting on its previous
decisions in United States VS.: n. Z
knight Co.. the court took occasion to say
in Addyson Pipe and Steel company VS.
United States. 175 U. S.. 246, that when ;
contract is made for the sale and deliver,
of an article in another state, the trans
action Is one Of interstate commerce. al
tho the vendor has also agreed to manu-
facture the article so sold; and that com
blnations to control and monopolize sue
transactions would be IL restraint OF III
terstate commerce.
In the other cases (Hopkins VS.. Unite
States and Anderson VS.. United States)
was held that the business Of the member
of the Kansas City Live Stock exchange
which was under consideration by tn
that the act did not affect them. and tha
even If they were so affected, the particu
lar agreement which was involved did nc
operate as a restraint of interstate CON
merce.
We fail to find, in either of these case
any suggestion that combination such {
the one in hand the object and necessa1
effect of which is to give to a single PEE
son or to a coterie Of persons full col
troll. of all the means of transportat1c
lines Of road engaged in interstate con
merce, AS well as the power to fix tt
rate for the transportation Of persons al
property, does not directly and immed
ately effect interstate commerce.
combination. as it would seem, could mo
Immediately affect 1t.
Not An Undue Restriction.
Again. it Is urged. tentatively, that
the existing combination which the go
ernment seeks to have dissolved Is he
to be one in violation of the anti-tru
act and unlawful, then the act unduly I
stricts the right of the individual to ma
contracts, buy and sell property, and
invalid for that reason. .>-..
With reference to this contention
might be suggested (as it has been by t
government) that as the situs of the sto
which the securities company has boug
is in the states Of Wisconsin and Mir
sofa, which respectively chartered t