Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-03-15


| our system of government. And no higher
duty rests upon this court than to enforce
! by its DEGREES the will of the Legislative
| department of the government as expressed
| In statute, unless such statute be plainly
and Enthusiastically in viola ton of the Con-
| stitution. If the statute is beyond the con-
| stitutlonal power of Congress, the court
| would fail in the performance of a solemn
| duty II IT did not so declare
| But If nothing more can he said than
| that Congress has erred-and the court
| must not be understood as saying that it
has or has not erred-the remedy for the
! error and the attendant mischief Is the
| selection of new senators and representa-
| tives who by legislation will make such
| changes in existing statutes or adopt such
new statutes as may be demanded by their
| constituents as being consistent with law.
Many suggestions were made in argu-
ment based on the thought that the anti
| trust act would, in the end prove to be mis-
| chievous in its consequences. Disaster to
| business and widespread financial ruin, it
has been intimated, will follow the execu-
| ton of its provisions. Such predictions
| We're made in all the cases heretofore aris-
| ing under that act. But they have not been
! verified. 1t is the history of nlonopolies in
| this country and in England that predc-
| lions of ruin are habitually made by them
| when it is attempted, by legislation, to re-
| STRAIN their operations and to protect the
| public against their exactons. In this as
| IN former cases. they seek shelter behind
| the reserved rights of the states and the
| Constitutional guarantee of liberty of con-
| tract. But this court has heretofore ad-
| judged that the act of Congress did not
| touch the rights of the states and that lib
| erty OF contract did not involve a right to
deprive the public of the advantages of free
| competition i'll trade and commerce.
! But even if the court shared the gloomy
| ioreoodings in which the defendants in
| uulge II could not refuse to respect the ac-
| ton of the legislative branch of the gov
| eminent if what it has done is within the
| limits of its constitutional powers The
| suggestions of disaster to business have,
we apprehend, their origin in the soul of
parties who are opposed to the policy I'M
| DERIVING the act of Congress- or are inter-
| ested In the result of this particular case
| At any rate, the suggestions imply that the
| court may, and ought to refuse the en-
| 1orcement of the provisions of the act If,
| In its Judgment, Congress was not wise
| in prescribing rule by which the con-
| duct of interstate and international COM
| merce is to be governed, that every COM
bination, whatever its form, in restraint Of
| such commerce and the monopolizing or
| attempting to monopoliZe such commerce,
| shall be illegal
| 'rhese plainly are questions as to the
| policy of legislation which belong to the
! legislative department, and this court has
no function to supervise such legislation
| from the standpoint of wisdom or policy.
| We need only say that Congress has au-
| thorty to declare and by the language of
| its act. as interpreted in prior cases, has,
| in effect, declared that the freedom of in
| terstate and international commerce shall
| not be obStructed disturbed by any
| combination. conspiracy or monopoly which
| will restrain such commerce, by preventing
| the free operation of competition among
| interstate carriers engaged in the trans
| portation of freight and passengers. This
| court cannot disregard that declaration I'M
| less Congress. In passing the statute in
| question be held to have transgressed the
| limits prescribed for it's action by the
| Constitution. But as already indicated, 1t
| cannot be so held consistently with the pro-
visions of that instrument.
| a n m a Y
| have been for the pecuniary benefit of
| those who formed it caused it to be
| formed. But the interests of private per-
| sons and corporations cannot be made par
| amount to the interests of the general pub
| lie. Under the articles of confederat ton,
| commerce among the original states was
| subject to vexatious and local regulations
| that took no account of the general well
| fare. But it for the protection Vef the
| general interests as involved in interstate
| and international commerce, that Congress-
| representing the whole country, was given
| by the Constitution full power to regulate
| commerce among the states and with for
| eign nations.
Justice Brewers Views.
| Justice Brewer. while coicurring in the
| opinion of the court, did not accept the
reasoning of Justice Harlan in all its de-
tails He expressed the opinion that some
| of the recent decisions of the court in anti
| trust cases had gone too far, and after mem
| tioning several of them said:
| Instead of holding that the antitrust
| act included all contracts, reasonable or I'M
| reasonable, in restraint of interstate trade,
! the ruling should have been that the con-
| tracts there presented were in themselves
| unreasonable restraints of interstate trade,
| and therefore within the scope of the act.
| Congress did not intend by that act to
| reach and destroy those minor contracts in
| partial restraint of trade which the long
| course of decisions at common law had af-
| frmed were reasonable and ought to be up
| held. The purpose rather vas to add a
| statutory prohibition with prescribed penal
| ties and remedies to nullify those contracts
which were III direct restraint of trade, UNI
| reasonable and against public policy When
| ever departure from common law rules
| and definitions is claimed, the purpose to
| make the departure should be clearly
| shown. Such a purpose does not appear,
| and such a departure was not intended
| Freedom OF action In these respects is
| among the inalienable rights of every citi-
| zen. If applying this to the present case,
| it appeared that Mr.. Hill was the owner
| of a ma jority 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 surplus means in the pur
| chase of stock of the Northern Pacific Rail
| way Company, 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 purchasing Northern Pa
| cific stock could not be denied to him by
Congress because or his ownership OF STOCK
in the Great Northern Compans."
| TT is recognition rather than disre-
| gard of such power This merging of con-
| troll and destruction of competition was
| not authorized but specifically prohibit
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
| We're engaged in was largely interstate
| commerce, a matter over which Congress
has control, and they were so situated
that they We're competitors in that bust
| ness.
| 1T must also be remembered that under
| present conditions a single railroad is, If
| not legal, largely a practical monopoly,
and the arrangement by which the con-
| troll of these two competing roads was
merged in single corporation broadens
and extends such monopoly cannot
| look upon it as other than an unreason-
able combination in restraint of inter-
state commerce one in conflict with
| state law and within the letter and spirit
of the statute and the power III Congress,
and, therefore, l concur in the judgment
of affirmance."
| 1uStica Ho1nac n;e.fa.+