The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-03-25


The New York Worlds recent state
ment that the second Cleveland admin
istration did nothing TO enforce the
Sherman antitrust statute is a com
plete misrepresentation. The real facts,
including the legal situation as Mr.. CIeve-
lands attorney general found it, are as
follows:
1.-The Sherman antitrust statute was
passed in 1890.
lin May, 1899. an Indictment in the
Massachusetts district against officers of
the so-called whisky trust was quashed
oy Judge Nelson 80 Fed. Rep. $50.
3-In August, 1892, an officer of the
same trust being arrested in Ohio for
removal TO Massachusetts for trial upon
an Indictment found under the act OF
1890. was discharged on habeas corpus oy
Mr. Justice Jackson. afterward judge Of
the United states supreme court upon
practically the same grounds afterwaId
adopted by the United States supreme
court in the case Of the United States vs..
knight et al. to be hereafter referred 20.
4-In October, lS92, an Indictment against
combination of lumber dealers was
quashed in the United States district
court for the district of Minnesota IN
substantially the same grounds as those
set forth in the cases above referred to.
6i6.
SIN November, 1892, it was held In the
United States circuit court for the Kan
sas district that the act of 1890 had no
iudicatIon afterward affirmed by the cir
cult court Of appeals United states vs..
Trans Missouri Freight association. 55
Fed Rep. 40; IS Fed Rep, IS
Gin March. 1898, q bill in equity was
pending which had been brought under
the direction Of Attorney General Miller
against the combination known as the
American sugar trust This case was
pushed to argument and decision with all
possible dispatch. with the result that to-
ward the end of January 1885. the SUI
.rr-F n f-rl1T ed n
ground that manufacture was not com
merce, and that. although the produce OF
manufacture were intended to be sold
and might be sold beyond the state OF
manufacture no interstate commerce
would be involved until the goods were
actually en- route to their destination be
yond such state. United States VS.. knight
Judge Harmon became attorney gen
eral in June. 1895
SIN December, ISs6=au appeal having
been taken from the circuit court OF ap-
peals TO the supreme court in the case
above referred TO OF United states vs.
Trans-Missouri Freight association
Judge Harmon caused the case to be ar
gned0with the result that on March p.
1897 the supreme court -four judges dis
senting) reversed the decision of the
courts below and held the act of 1880 10
be applicable TO railroads engaged in IN
terstate commerce. 166 l. s. 30.
II was a notable triumph for Judge
Harmon, -inasmuch as before the argu-
dissolved. so that besides the cOnstruc-
ton and the legal merits of the act of
1880. an important question of Jurisdic-
ton was involved.
ain 1896 or 1897, by direction OF Judge
Harmon. proceedings were begun by the
United States against the Addyston Pipe
< Steel company. IS Fed Rep, 10.
1t will be seen from the foregoing:
F'irst-That during the seven years
succeeding the enactment Of the statute
adiudicauons OF the courts
had been against its application 20 the
cases brought before them.
Second-That industrial combinations
for the purpose of manufacture. no mat
ter how large or mouopolstic. were de-
cided by the Emitted States supreme court
IN 1895 not 70 be within the purview OF
the statute-a decision which has never
been overruled and is still the law OF the
land.
Third-That the first important adj
Indication in favor OF the act in its prlc-
teal operation upon interstate commerce
was procured by Judge Harmon in the
case Of the United States VS.. Transmits
souri, Freight association. whereby the
act Of 1890 was declared 10 be applicable
to railroad companies engaged in inter-
state commerce.
Fourth-That the decision in the North
ern Securities case simply applies the
doctrine settled in the Trans Missouri
Freight association case; and
Fifth-That the notable Addyston Pipe
& Steel company case which has been
thought to qualify in important respects
the previous decision of the supreme
court OF the United States IN United
States vs.. knightNet al, was initiated by
Judge Harmon