The San Francisco call., 1904-03-15


functions and will be an invasion Of
the rights of the State under which
the company was chartered, he said:
We cannot conceive how it is possible for any
one seriously TO contemplate such a PROPOSE
tion.
Continuing in this line, he said:
We reject any such views of the relations Of
the national Government and ehe states 9ni, S1in,
posing the Union. 1t cannot be given eHeet
without destroying the just authority Of the
United States.
DISASTER PREDICTED.
Discussing the question as to the
effect of the antitrust law on financial
interests, Justice Harlan said the pre-
dictfon had been made that disaster to
business and widespread financial ruin
would follow the execution of its pro-
visions and, he added. that such pre-
dictions had been made in connection
with all preceding questions under that
act, but" he said, they have not
been verified" continuing, he said:
1t Is the history OF rnonopoIies in this country
and England that predictions of ruin are
habitualIy made by them when it is attempted
by legislation to restrain 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
tract But this court has heretofore adIudged
that the act of Congress did not touch the
rights Of the States and that liberty OF CONTRACT
did not involve a right to deprive the public
of the advantages Of free competition in trade
and commerce. But. even if the court shared
the gloomy fore ebodings in which the defend
ants indulge IL could not refuse TO respect
the action of the legislative branch OF the
{ Government if what it has done is within
the limits of its constitutional power. The
suggestions of disaster to business have, we
apprehend, their origin in the zeai OF parues
r1rna n
act of Congress are interested in the result
of this particular case; at any rate the sug-
gestions imply that the court may and ought 10
refuse the enforcement of the provisions Of
the act it, in its judgment. Congress was not
conduct Of interstate and international com
merce is TO be governed that every eotnolha-
commerce and the monopolizing or attempting
to mOnOpolize such commerce shall be illegal.
These plainly are questions as 10 the policy OF
legislation which belong to the legislative de-
partment and this court has function 10
supervise such legislation from the standpoint
of wisdom or policy.
FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.
Justice Harlan set aside as fallacious
the argument that the acquisition Of
stock by the Northern Securities Com
pany was in the nature of an invest
ment. saying that there had been no
actual investment in any substantial
sense. In this connection. he referred
to Mr.. Morgan as authority for the
statement that the stock had been
transferred to the Securities Company
merely for the purpose of suppressing
competition and, in support of this
statement, quoted the testimony of Mr..
Morgan in which he had said that the
Securities Company had been created
custodian. because it had no other alli-
ances-
Referring to the decree of the Circuit
Court. Justice Harlan said that no
valid objection could be made to it In
form or in substance.
Discussing the, effectiveness of relief
at the hands of the court, he quoted
approvingly the disposal by the Circuit
Court of the point, and continued:
The Circuit Court has done only what the
actual situation demanded Its decree has
done nothing more than to meet the require
ments OF the statute.
Attention also was given to the argu-
ment that the antitrust act must be
strictly construed in it's criminal fea-
lures. Quoting a number of authorities
on this subject, Justice Harlan said:
Guided by these long established rules Of
construetion il Is manifest that II the anti
trust now ao BEFORE us. the plain intention OF the
legislative branch of the Government will be
defeated.
Justice Harlan. in conclusion, said:
The Judgment of the court is that the decree
below is hereby approved, with liberty 10 the
Circuit Court to proceed in the execution OF its
decree as the circumstances may require.
BREWER DISSENTS.
Justices Brewer. Brown. McKenna
and Day concurred in this opinion and
they, with Justice Harlan constituting
a majority of the court. made II the
opinion of the court. Justice Brewer.
however, did not accept the reasoning
of Justice Harlan in all it's details and
therefore delivered a brief opinion Of
his own. He expressed the opinion that
some of the recent decisions of the
court in antitrust cases had gone too
far and, after mentioning several of
them, said:
Instead of holding that the antitrust act
included all contracts. reasonable or unFea-
sonabR in restraint OF interstate trade the
ruling should have been that the contracts
there presented in themselves unreason-
able restrains Of interstate trade. and therefore