The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-03-15
JUSTICE BREWER
PARTIALLY DISSENTS

Justice Brewer, however, did not ac-
scept the reasoning of Justice Harlan in
all its details, and therefore delivered
a brief opinion of his own. He ex-
pressed the opinion that some of the
recent decisions of the court in anti
trust cases had gone too far, and, aft
er mentioning several of them, said:
Instead of holding that the anti trust
act included all contracts, reasonable or
unreasonable, in restraint of interstate
trade,s the ruling should have been that
the contracts there presented were IN
themselves unreaSOnabl BILE restraints Of in
terstate trade and therefore within the
scope of the act. Congress did not in
tend by that act TO reach and destroy
those minor contracts in partial restraint
cisions at common law had affirmed We're
reasonable and ought to be upheld. The
purpose rather was to add statutory
prohibition with prescribed penalties and
remedies to nullify those contracts which
were in direct restraint of trade, unreas-
sonable and against public policy. When
ever a departure from common law rules
and definitions is claimed the purpose is
to make the departure should be clearly
shown, Such a purpose does not appear
and such a departure was not intended.
He also held that the general lam
guage of the act is limited by the
power, which the individual has to man
age his own property and determine
the place and manner Of it's invest
ment, saying on this point:
Freedom of action in these respects is
among the inalienable rights of every
emit case, it appeared that Mr.. Hill was
the owner of majority of the stock In
the Great Northern Railway company,
he could not by any act of congress be
deprived of the right of investing his sur
plus means in the purchase OF stock OF
the Northern Pacific railway. although
such purchase might tend to vest IN him
through that ownership a control over
both companies In other words, the right,
which all other citizens had, of purchas-
ing Northern Pacific stock. could not be
denied to him by congress because of
his ownership Of stock in the Great
Northern company.
Heseentended,. however. that the pro-
hibition of combinations is not at all
inconsistent with the right of an i'm
dividual to purchase stock and said
that the transfer of stock to the Sc
curities company was mere incident.
He also asserted that there is by this
suit no interference with state power,
and on this point said:
1t is a recognition rather than dis
regard of such power. The merging of
control and destruction of competition
was not authorized but specifically pro-
hibited by the state which created one OF
the railroad companies and within whose
boundaries the lines of both were largely
located and much of their business trans
acted. 1t has been pointed out that the
work which these two railroad companies
were engaged in was largely interstate
commerce, a matter over which congress
has control. and they were so situated
that they were competitors in that bus
mess
It must also be remembered that under
present conditions a single railroad is, If
not legal largely practical monopoly
and the arrangement by which the control
of these two competing roads was merged
in a single corporation broadens and ex-
tends such monopoly. 1 cannot look upon
it as other than an unreasonable combi-
nation in restraint of interstate commerce
--one in conflict with state law and with
In the letter and spirit of the statute and
the power of congress- and therefore I
concI,r in the i,1dpment of affirmance