The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-07-16
THE AxrI-rRusr ACT.


 supremacy in 1897. A portion of that
 work Is thus stated: Laws enacted
 by the Republican Party which the Democratic Party failed to enforce and which were intended for the protection of the public against unjust discrimina- ticn or the illegal encroachment Of vast asgregations of capital, have been rearlexsly enforced by a Republican President" Of course this refers to the prosecution of cases under the Antitrust law which eliminated In the case against the Northern securi- ties Company. It is well. therefore. at the outset of the campaign to expose
 the absolute falsity. first. of the charge that the Democratic Party failed to enforce this law and. secondly. of the claim that the law has been fearlessly enforced by a Republican President The first effort to enforce the law was made by Attorney General Miller
 during the administration of President Harrison. The case brought by MT. Miller is known as the sugar Irust case. It had been lost by the govern ment in both of the lower courts ana
 was pending in the Supreme Court when MT. Olney became Attorney Gen. eral. The Supreme Court held in that case with one dissenting vote. that the law was unconstitutional in its appli- cation to trusts" engaged in produc- | ton as distinguished from transporta- l tion. and whose operations did not directly restrain interstate commerce. The reason for the decision was not that these trusts were innocent, but | that the Jurisdiction over them belong l ed to the States and not to the Federal | Government. The suit against the l Trans Missouri Freight Association
 was begun during President Harrison's term. The complaint was dismissed
 by the court below but an appeal was prosecuted by Attorney General Olney. | Pending this a similar suit was begun
 at the direction of Attorney General | Harmon known as the Joint Traffic l Association" case. Both cases were decided in favor of the Government. | Another case, the "Cast-Iron Pipe l Trust" case, was instituted by Attor- 1 ney General Harmon. This case was | won by the Government and the opinion | of the court in each of these cases was l delivered by Justice Peckham, Demo-
 cratic Judge, appointed by MT. Cleve- | land.
 But the great case. known as The l Northern Securities Company case Is no doubt the one upon which the lead | CTS of the Republican Party largely base the boast in their platform. A
 brief examination of the real question
 decided in that case will show that the ground upon which this boast is based
 Is very narrow indeed. Justice Harlan
 who delivered the opinion of the court,
 stated the case thus:
 | ''Is the act to be construed as for bidding every combination or conspira- cy in restraint of trade or commerce
 among the States or with foreign States, Or, does it embrace only such restraints as are unreasonable in their , nature? How far may Congress go Tn
 regulating the affairs or conduct of
 State corporations engaged as carriers in commerce among the States or of
 State corporations which although not i; directly engaged themselves in such
 commerce. yet have control of the busi- | ness of interstate carriers"
 The court was asked to adjudge that
 if held to embrace the case before them
 the Antitrust act was repugnant tc the Constitution of the United States.
 The court held that the Anti-Trus
 act did embrace the case before 1t, ant
 that the act was not repugnant to th'
 Constitution. Justices Harlan, Brew CT, Brown. McKenna and Day concur red in this decision. But Justice
 Brewer said he could not assent to al that was said in the opinion and tha he believed the importance of the cas- and the questions involved justified brief statement of his views. He salt that while he was with the majority O } the court in the Freight Association
 case, followed by other cases, an' while a further examination had no disturbed the conviction that thos cases were rightly decided he though that in some respects the reasons givel for the judgments could not be sus tained. Instead of holding that tn Antitrust act included all contracts reasonable or unreasonable, In restrain of interstate trade. the ruling shoul have been that the contracts there pre- sented were unreasonable restraints O interstate trade, and as such within 5 the scope of the act; that Congress ali, not intend to reach and destroy thos l minor contracts in partial restraint O trade which the long course of decis Il ions at common law had affirme, were reasonable and ought to be upheld d The purpose rather was to place 0 statutory prohibition with prescribe t penalties and remedies upon those con r tracts which were in direct restraint O = trade unreasonable and against publi Il policy"
 r Justice White delivered the dissent = ing opinion, in which Chief Justic e Fuller and Justices Peckham an o Holmes concurred. They held tha
 Congress was without power to regu 0 late the acquisition and ownership ( s the stock in question by the Norther Securities Company and even if ther s were such power in Congress it ha not been exercised in the Anti-Tru: $ act. We find then that the result ( t the decision in this famous case