The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-15
JUSTICE HARLAN'S
NOTABLE OPINION
CONTINUED from First Page.>

..r GsJ
It embraces and decla:es to be illegal every con-
tract combination or conspiracy; in whatever
parties to it. which directly necessarily oper-
ates in restraint of trade or commerce among the
several states or with foreign nations.
That the act Is not limited to restraints of
that are unreasonable In their nature. but is
directed against all direct restraints, reasonable
unreasonable, imposed by any combination,
conspiracy or monopoly upon such trade or COM
merce.
International trade or commerce are embraced by
That combinations, even among private manu-
facturers or dealers whereby Interstate or in
ternational commerce Is restrained, are equally
That congress has the power to, establish
rules by which interstate and international com.
act has prescribed the rule of free competition
among those engaged in such commerce.
would extinguish competition between other
rae 90 os S IN Was
restrain such trade or commerce, Is made Illegal
That the natural effect Of competition is to
increase aicre commerce and an agreement whose
petition restraints instead Of promotes trade and
commerce.
That to vitiate combination, such as the
act Of congress, condemns, it need not be shown
that such combination. in fact, results or will |
ecmee monopo but It Is only 'aas
show that by Its necessary operation IT ,d tends
commerce or tends to create monopoly in such
trade or commerce and to deprive the publiic, OF
That the constitutional guarantee Of liberty
of contract does not prevent congress from pre-.
engaged In interstate and International COM
lnerce. . -
among the several states and foreign nations.
congress had authority to enact the statute In
Takes Up Contention.
Justice Harlan took up the contention of
the counsel for the Securities company and
in presenting that said:
Underlying their argument is the idea that
ton and as its acquisition Of the stock Of the
railroad companies Is not consistent with the now
ers conferred by its charter. the enforcement OF
the act Of congress against these corporations
Will b in its operation an interference by the
lnerce Of the states creating those corporations
TO this objection Justice Harlan directed
large share Of his opinion, returning fire.
quently to presentation of the right Of
federal control over state direction in
such cases. Speaking Of the states rights
plea Of the railroad representatives he
said:
This view does not impress US. There is no
reason to suppose that congress had any purpose
to Interfere with the Internal affairs OF the state
nor Is there any ground whatever for the conten-
ton that the antitrust act regulates their domes-
lateS only commerce among the states and In the
cd. BY the explicit words Of the constitution
that instrument and the laws enacted by congress
law ths In
or the laws of any state to the contrary not
courts and even over the people Of the United
States; the source Of all power under our govern
which the constitution was ordained.
An act Of congress eonstitutionally passed un.
der Its power to regulate commerce among the
statos and among foreign states is binding upon
all ss much so as If it were embodied in terms
IN hn nncfi ~ ttcol
Every judicial officer. whether of national
or state court: is under the obliga lions Of an
gress: Not even state. still less one Of its
in ' Ss OF 1T.
ment and its laws might be Frustrated at the feet
of local authority.
Rights Of individuals.
He brushed aside as scarcely worth men
t1ontng the contention on the part Of the
Securities company that the question in
volved Is the right Of an individual to dis
pose Of his stock in state corporation,
and that In suoh transactions the individ-
uals whose interests are involved are sub
ject only to the restraint Of state laws.
Merely referring to these objections he
said
1t Is unnecessary in this to consider such
abstract general questions. The court need not
to BE- examined and determined and may ns as
we'll be left for consideration In some cases neces-
sarily involving their determination.
ment that the position Of the government
amounts to declaring that the ownership
Of stock in a railroad corporation Is in it.
self interstate commerce and to other SIM
liar declarations, and, commenting upon
these, he saidi
We do not understand that the government
makes any such contentious or takes any such
positions as those statements imply: It does
not contend that congress may control the mere
ownership Of stock in a state corporation engaged
In Interstate commerce 1t does not contend that
ownership Of state corporations authorized BY
their charters to engage in interstate and inter.
congress may protect the freedom Of Interstate
commerce by any means that are appropriate and
stitution. t does not contend dat no state cor.
poraten can stand In the way Of the enforce
What the i pateusry eompans
ofEindeed: all that It complains Of here-is the
srs Of competing railroads, which in violation
Of the act Of congress restraints interstate com.
russe % to act tor BOTH
depressing free competition by them.
Rights OF Congress.
The opinion then takes up the right O.
congress to enact such legislation as thu
antitrust law, and goes into an inquiry
as to how far the courts may go in orde
to give effect to such an act and tt
remedy the evils designed to be suppressed
by 1t.
Quoting the famous declaration Of tn,
court IN the case OF MCCOllOCn VS.. Mary
/ land that the government ordained ant
established by the constitution Is, within
the limits Of the powers granted to 1t
"the government Of all; that It represent
and acts for all and Is supreme within
it's sphere of action" Justice Harlan sal,
4 it was the intention of legislation Of thi
character to prescribe a rule for interstat
and international commerce, which shoul
prevent vexation by combinations, con
spiraoies or monopolies which RESTRAIN
commerce by destroying restricting
competition. He then added,
/ We say that congress has prescribed suc
rule, because in all the prior cases in thi
court the antitrust act has been construed a
forbidding any combination which by It
necessary operation destroys or restricts fire.
competition among those engaged in 1nterstat
8 eommerae--in other words, that to destroy o
restrict free competition In interstate com
z MERGE was to restrain such commerce. Now
can this court, In reason, say that such rul
Is prohibited by the constitution, or Is it nc
one that congress could appropriately prescrlb
when exerting its power under the commerce
clause Of the constitution
An Economic Question.
WhetheN the free operation Of the norm.
laws Of competition is wise and wholeson
rule for trade and commerce Is an econom
question which this court need not consider
determine Many persons, We may judicial
know, OF wisdom, experience and learning, b
neve that such a rule Is necessary
I1-A - n-lNH a