The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-03-15

1OHtilluSO lIblU L 81 dSC
.ly worth mentioning the contention on the
part OF the Securities company that the
question involved is the right of an in
oividual to dispose of his stock in a state
corporation and that in such transactions
the individuals whose interests are in
volved are subject only to the restraint
OF state laws.
Justice -4arIan also referred to the ar
gument that the position of the govern
ment amounts to declaring that the own
ership of stock in a railroad corporation
Is in itself interstate commerce and to
other similar declarations. and, comment
ing on these, he said:
We do not understand that the gov
eminent makes any such contentious or
takes any such positions as those state
ments imply. 1t does note ontend that
congress may control the mere owner
shin Of stock in a state corporation. en-
gagged in interstate commerce. 1t does
not contend that congress can control
the organization of mere ownership of
state corporations. authorized by their
charters to engage in Interstate and in
ternational commerce but it does con-
tend that congress may protect the free
dom of interstate commerce by means
that are apparent and that are lawful
and are not prohibited by the constitu-
ton
The opinion then takes up the right
of congress to enact such legislation as
the antitrust law and goes into an in
uuiry as TO how far the courts may go
IN order to give effect to such an act
TO remedy to evils designed to be sup
pressed by it.
Justice Harlan said it was the inten-
ton of legislation of this character to
prescribe a rule for interstate and inter
mai commerce which would prevent ex-
action by combination, conspracies or
monorolios which restrict competition
lie then added.
'eN say that congress has prescribed
such rule because in all the prior
cases in this court the antitrust act has
been construed as forbiddng any COM
bination which by its necessary opera
ton destroys or restricts free competitor
among those engaged in interstate com
merce in other words that to destroy
or restrict free competition in interstate
commerce WAS to restrain such COM
merce. Now can this court in reason.
say that such rule is prohibited by the
constitution. or is one that congress could
not prescribe when exertinE its power
under the commerce clause of the con-
stitution?'
Taking up the contention that railroad
corporations created under the laws of a
state can be consolidated with the au-
hfngs FaT4
mat he could notu Understand why this
suggestion was made in this case for.
ne went on. there is no pretense that
the combination herein question was I'M
DER the authority of the states under
which laws these railroad corporations
were created
But even if the state allowed con-
;5tructiou il would not follow that the
stockholders of two or more state cor
rorations engaged in interstate commerce
could lawfully combine and form a dis
tinct corporation To hold the stock Of
The constituent corporations and bevond
saying competition between them restrain
commerce among the states and with
foreign nations"
Justice Harlan announced tho ability,
of the court to concur in the view thar
the antitrust act is repucnant To the
constitution of the United States ..Tbc
contention of the defendants. he said
coUlc not be sustained without IN
effect ovcrrulinE the prior decision NJ
thlS court as 10 the scope and validity of
the antitrust act
proceeding further in prooou-sing this
line of argument he said:
Indeed. If the contentious or tho 10
PENDANTS are sound. why may not All Tho
Railway companies i'm the United States
that are engaged under stat, charters
IN Interstate and internal commerce en-
ter into combination such as he one
herein presented the advice of q holding
corporation obtain the absolute ,,o,t,ol
throughout the enthe country of rates
Tor passengers and freiCh. beyond tho
power of congress to protect the public
against their exactiouse"
Justice Harlan i'm conclusion said.
The Judgment OF the court is thar III,
decree below and here is confirmed with
liberty 10 the circuit court 10 proceed in
the execution OF its decree as the circuro
stances may require"
Justice White said he conceded 70 the
fullest extent the power Of congress over
Interstate commerce.
But this question 90 he said. is s,yy,,r-
ship commerce, is the acquisition AMI
ownership Of property interstate conn-
ncrcC2
commerce undoubtedly is traffic" h
went on. but it is something more II
II Toe true that the ownership OF rail-
roads may be controlled hy the federal
government why may not all ownership
be SO controlled2"
If the principle here adopted be true
oontended Mr.. Hin control of the rail-
roads in question could be taken from
him" He could not accept This theory.
but contended for the right ~ the STATE
20 regulate matters Of this character
for themselves. For the federal govern 4