The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-03-15

"a
fact; results, OF will i.esulttGin5h total
suppression or trade or III d complete
monopoly, but 1T is only essential 70
show that bysits necessary operate ~
tends To restrain Illiterstntc or nlrrillh-$
3lional ttatle or commerce. Or tcitds 70
creStoln monopoly II, s,ich trade Or conf
.marce, and to deprive tho public OF inc
ton
syrlat the constitutional guarantee or
liberty Of contract does not prevent Con-
gress fran prescribing the r,,c OF Tree
competition for those cignged IN inter
state and International commerce.
s5'"rhat under Its ptlwer ~ rcE'ilnltLe com,
morcc among tho several states and
10 enact tho stat ,itc III question:
Justice Inrlai, took up the contentious
or tie counsel for the Securities Com
pany, and In presenting them said that
',ntlerlying their. argument Is the idea
that as tho Northern Securities Company
Is h corporation, and as It's acquisition
or the stock OF tho railroad companies
is rot inconsistent with the powers con-
,fcried BY its charter. tho enforcement
OF the act OF Congress MS against these
corporations will asbe, In It's operation,
an interference By the national gov
ernment with the internal commerce or
tho States creating these corpora tons"
TO this objection Justice Harlan directed
a very largo share Of his opinion. re-
turning frequently during the course OF
his remarks to d presentation ofsthe right
OF Federal control over state dlrcctionin
such cases. Speaking OF the States
rights plea OF the railroad representa-
tive, he said :sHi 81. n
Was Not Impressed.
lo''This Wow does not impress us. There
Is no reason to suppose that Congress
had any purpose to- Interfere With the
Internal affairs OF the States, nor is
there any ground whatever for tho con-
tontlor that the nntl-trust act regulates
their domestic commerce.. BY Its very
terms tho act regulates only commerce
among the Entes and IN tho foreign,
States. Viewed III that light, tho act
must he respected BY tho explicit words
OF the Constitution that instrument land
the laws enacted By Congress In pursu-
arce of It's provisions, are tho supreme
law Of tho land. anything In tho Con-
stitutior or laws of any State to the
contrary notwlth disadvantages over
tho Stat ties. over'tho courts, and mover
the people of the UnitedS states, the
source of all power under our govern
mental system In respect Of the objec-
tons for which the Constitution was or
dained. An act OF Congress constitu-
Stionally passed under its power to regu-
late commerce among the States and
with foreign States Is binding upon all
IS much so as II It were embodied in
terms In the Constitution itself Every
judicial office, whether OF n national or a.
State court, is under the obligations of
an oath to SO regard a lawful enactment
OF Congress-. Not even a State. still less
ono Of Its artificial creatures. car stand
in the way OF its enforcement. II 1t were
otherwise, the government and its laws
might be Frustrated at the feet of local
authority 5E
AS a Matter of Course.
Justice Harlan brushed aside as scarcely
worth mentioning the contention on the
part OF the securities company that the
question involved is the right Of an ind-
vidual to dispose Of his stock in Il State
corporation. and that In such transac-
lions the individuals whose interests are.
involved arc subject only TO the restraint.
OF State laws. Justice Harlan also re-
ferred to the argument that the position
of the government amounts to declaring
that the ownership of the stock In q rail 4
road corporation Is In itself Interstate
commerce and to other similar declara-
tons, and, commenting upon these lie
said:
we, do not understand that the gov
eminent makes any such contentious or
takes .Hny %SuCN DOSltlONS us &tIsOSG SluLe-g
5ments imply. 1t docs not contend that
Congress can control the mere ownership
Of stock in a State corporation. engaged
In interstate commerce. But 1t does con-
tend that Congress may protect the free
dom OF interstate commerce by any means
that are appropriate and that are lawful
and not prohibited BY the Constitution"
CONGRESSES Power.
The opinion then takes up the right Of
Congress TO enact such legislation as the
anti-~ust law, aud says:
whether tie free operation OF the nor.
NAL laws OF competition Is a wise and
wholesome rule for trade and commerce
is anS economic question which this court
need not consider or determine. Many
persons. we may judcially know. Of
wisdom, experience and learning, believe
that such rulo ls more necessary III
these days of enormous wealth than It
ever was In any former period OF our
his tory: indeed. that The time has come
when tile public needs to be protected
against the exactions OF corporations
welding the power whlchattcnds the pos
session &C unlimited capital. Be this as
1t may, Congress hasn effect recognized
the rule or free competition when declar-
ing illega every combination or conspir-
acy In restraint OF Interstate and inter-
national commerce. II IN the Judgment OF
Congress The public convenience or the
general welfare Will BIO best subserved
when the natural laws Of competition
arc left undisturbed by those engaged in
Interstate commerce, this must be, for
MI. tho end OF the matter, II this Is to
remain a government OF laws and not Of
men"
Justice Harlan announced tho inability
OF thd court to concur II, the view that
the antitrust act Is repugnant TO the
Consultation Of the United States. lie
| said:
"lf the contentious of the defendants
arc sound, why may not all the railway
companies in tho United States, that are
/ cnunrcu under State charters. In inter.
4 state and international commerce, enter
into a combination, such as tho ono here
In question, and by the device OF a hold
i Ing corporations obtain the absolute con.
| troll throughout the cnrlre country OF
rates for passengers and freight beyond
1 the power Of Congress TO protect the