The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-15


 at common law had affirmed were reason able and ought to be upheld. The purpose rather was to add c statutory prohibi- tion which prescribe. penalties and rem edies to nuiiify these contracts which were in direct restraint of trade, unrea- sonable and against public policy
 He also held that the general language of the act is limited by the power which the individual has to manage his own property. ana determine the place and manner of Its investment. saying on this point:
 Freedom of action in these respects Is among the inalienable rights of every citizen. If, applying this to the present case. it appeared that Mr. Hill was the owner of e, majority of the stock in the Great Northern Railroad Company, he could not, by any act of Congress. be de- prived of the right of investing his sur plus means In the purchase of stock of the Northern Paciac Railroad. although such purchase might tend to vest in, him through that ownership, control over The Dissenting Views.
 The dissenting justices. including Chief Justice Fuller, and. Justices, White, Beck ham and Holmes. presented two opinions. giving their reasons for not agreeing with the majority in the decision reached. In the first of these was delivered, by Jus ! tice Holmes and the second by Justice White. Justice Holmes. in his opinion contended that the antitrust statute Is of a criminal nature and said:
 "It Is ;n vain to insist that this is not criminal proceeding. The words cannot be read one way in a suit which Is to end In a fine and Imprisonment. and another l way in one which seeks an injunction. am no friend of artificial interpretations, because the statute is of one kind rather than another. but all will agree that be- fore a statute Is to be taken to punish that which always has been lawful. 1t must express its intent ia clear words. | So say. we must read the words before us as if the question were whether two small exporting grocers should go to jail"
 He conceded. he said, for the purpose of discussion. that Congress might take | steps not only to regulate commerce, but also to regulate instruments of com merce, or contracts. the bearing of which upon commerce would be only indirect. But the mere fact of an indirect efect on commerce not shown to be certain, he argued. would not justify such law. Referring to the contention as to the e:- feet the acquisition of the stock of the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railroad Companies would have in pre- venting competition between the two l roads, Justice Holmes said: ,...
 Can Be Made Crime.
 'If such remote result of the exer- else Of an ordinary Incident of property and personal freedom Is enough to make that exercise unlawful, there is hardly any transaction concerning commerce be- tween the States that may not be made a crime by the finding of a jury or court.
 He did not expect, he said, to hear It contended that Mir. Morgan could be sent to jail for buying In his individual ca pacity shares of stock of the two rail' road companies, even if he bought them at the same time and got more than half of the stock of such roads. "Het, ne said, ''nnless am entirely wrong in my understanding of what combination ID | restraint of trade means, then the same monopoly may be attempted and efrected by an individual and Is made equally ille~ gal in the case by Section g."
 Continuing he said: "The law says nothing about competition and only pre- vents its suppression by contracts or combinations In restraint of trade, and such contracts or combinations derive their. character as restraining trade from other features than the suppression of competition alone" Justtce whites opinion wns of consid- erable length and required more thaa an hour for it's delivery. He based hlt ! remarks upon what he said were the two principal questions al issue. which were, "Does the antI-trust net. when righttul- ly Interpreted. apply to the acquisition ! ana owrershtp by the Northern Securt- T lies Company of the stock in the two T railroads; and, second. is it does.' had Congress ene power to regulate or control such acquisition and 0wnership'r
 ''In considering the question of power. he proceeded on the assumption that the antitrust act forbids the acquisition of majority Of the stock of two competing i railroads engaged In interstate commerce by a corporation. but he held that the point at issue really was whether Con- gressional supervision extends to the regulation of the ownership of stock ia railroads, which Is. he said, not com . merce at all. He dwelt on the necessity for observing this distinction.
 Ownership of Stock.
 DOCS" he went on. "tAe delegation oi authority % Congress to regulate com merce among the States embrace the power to regulate the ownership of stock in State corporations because such cor . . : porations may be in part engaged in in' terstate commerce? Certainly not fl 1 such question Is 70 be governed by the detn!tion of commerce as given in the , case O. Globes vs. Ogden"
 He then announced his opinion to be that stock ownership Tn State corpora tion cannot be said to be in any sense traffic between the States, or Intercourse between them. ,ast. :'
 Justice White took issue with the proposition: o. the government that Con- gress:onai power owe: interstate com me-ce includes authority to regulate the : instrumeatai:ties of such commerce. and 10 reg1late the ownership along with the possession of property [: the enjoyEner; Of such tights would enable those Tho possess them If they engage in inter sta:e commerce to exert power over the same. Cnde: this doctrine the sum O. property to De acquired by Individuals or by corporations. the contracts which they would. make. would be wi,A.r the regu- !at!ag power 0: Congress. .f the wage earneY organized to better his condition and Congress believed that tho existence of such organization: would give power. if n were exertec to affect interstate commerce, Congress could forbid the organization os ali labor associations"