The San Francisco call., 1904-03-15
STATES RIGHTS PLEA.

Speaking OF the States rights plea of
the railroad representatives, Justice
Harlan said:
This view does not impress us There is no
reason to suppose that Congress had any pur-
pose 10 interfere with the internal affairs of
the State. nor is there any ground whatever
for the contention that the anti thrust act regu-
ates their domestic commerce.
Justice Harlan brushed aside as
scarcely worth mentioning the conten-
tion on the part of the Securities Com
pany that the question involved is the
right of an individual TO dispose of his
stock in a State corporation, and that in
such transactions the individuals
whose interests are involved are SUBJ
ject only to the restraint of State laws.
He also referred to t. argument that
the position of the Government
amounts to declaring that the owner
ship of stock in a railroad corporation
is in itself interstate commerce and to
other similar declarations and, COM
menting on these, he said:
We do not understand that the Government
makes any such contentious or takes any such
positions as those statements imply. 1t does
not contend that Congress may control the
mere ownership of stock in State corporation
engaged In Interstate commerce. 1t does not
contend that Congress can control the orsantEa
tion or mere ownership Of State corporations,
authorized b. their charters to engage i'll in
terstate and international commerce. But it
does contend that Congress may protect the
freedom of Interstate commerce by any means
that appropriate and that are lawful and
not prohibited by the constitution
CONGRESSIONAL RIGHTS.
The opinion then takes up the right
of Congress to enact such legislation as
the antitrust law and goes into an in
quiry as to how far the courts may go
in order to give effect to such an act
and to remedy the evils designed to be
suppressed by it. Justice Harlan said
it was the intention of legislation of
this character to prescribe a rule for
interstate and international commerce
which should prevent vexation by COM
binations conspiracies or monopolies
which restrain commerce by destroying
or restricting competition. He then
added
We say that Congress has prescribed such
rule because in all prior cases in this court
bidding any combination which by its neees-
sary operation destroys or restricts free COM
petition among those engaged In interstate
commerce; In other words, that to destroy or
restrict free competition in interstate COM
merce was TO restrain such commerce Now,
can this court. in reason say that such
rule is prohibited by the constitution is not
one that Congress could appropriately prescribe
when exertng its power under the commerce
clause of the constitution?
Taking up the contention that rail-
road corporations created under the
laws of a State can be consolidated
only with the authority of that State
Justice Harlan said that he could not
understand why this suggestion was
made in this case. For" he went on,
there is no pretense that the combi-
nation here in question was under the
authority of the States under which
laws these railroad corporations were
created"
But even If the State allowed consolidation,
il would not follow that the stockholders of
two more State corporations engaged in in
terstate commerce could lawfully combine and
form a distinct corporation to bold the stock
of the constituent corporations and by de-
stroying competition between them restrain
commerce among the States and with foreign
nations.