New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-15

/ ties Company Is a corporation ana a. i'
oufsition - the stock Of the railroad
4 e no. consistent with the powers collerieu -
is charter the enforcement Of the act OF Con-
D -. e s-afnSt these corporations Will be IN
. a. o,arsti,n -, Interference by the national
t -,verD-,ent with the internal commerce OF the
states creating those corporations
To This objection Justice Harlan directed
. ve-v large share Of his opinion. returning ire
ouent!v in the course Of his remarks 10 pres
ertatfon Of the right 81 federal control over
state direction IN such cases Speaking OF the
4 states rights plea Of the railroad representa-
+ lives he said:
This view does not impress Us. There Is no
! reason to suppose that Congress had any pur-
pose TO interfere with the internal aHdHS O.
the State nor is there any ground Whatever
for the contention that the Ant-lrust aC' Iss
ulates their domestic commerce. Ey It's NeIy
terms The act regulates only coinneiSS alSi a.
. the States and in the. foreign states N4S"Su 40
4 that light. the act must be respected
BY the explicit words Of tho Constitution
that instrument and the laws enacted BY Con-
aress in pursuance Of its provisions, are the
supreme law Of the land, anything IN the Con-
stitution or the laws Of any State to tho con-
! trary notwithstanding supreme over the
/ States, over the courts, and even over the Peo-
/ pIe Of the United States, the sources OF all
power under our governmental system IN re-
speet Of the objects for which the Constitution
1 was ordained.
An act Of Congress constitutionally passed
I under its power TO regulate commerce among
Tho states and with foreign states IS blndlnS
1uon all as much as II il were eubodleQ IN
S-,,,s ~, the constitution itself Every judicial
/ officer. whether Of national or state court
is under the obligations OF an oath - $50 re
gard n lawful enactment Of Congress. Not even
"a STATE still less one OF its artificial creatures
can stand in the way Of its enforcement II II
were otherwise, the government ana us Avs
might be Frustrated at the feet or local au''io'
fly.
lie brushed aside as scarcely worth mention
ing the contention on the part Of the seouri-
ties company that the question involved Is the
tight OF an individual to dispose Of his stock in
a state corporation. and that IN such transac-
. lions the individuals whose interests are in
VOWED are subject only 70 the restraint Of state
laws Merely referring TO these objections. he
. said:
IT unnecessary IN this case to consider such
abstract general questions. Tho court" he went
On. need not now concern itself with them.
They are not here to be examined and deter
mined and may as well he left for consideration
in some cares necessarily involving thei- de-
termination"
OWNERSHIP OF STOCK
Justice Harlan also referred to the argument
that the position Of the government amounts to
declaring that the ownership OF stock in a rail-
road corporation Is IN itself Interstate commerce.
and to other similar declarations. and. comment
Ing Ola these, ne 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 contFoi ire mere
ownership OF stock ia a state corporation. en-
"a Ced in Interstate commerce. Il does not con-
tend that Congress can control the organization
or mere ownership OF State corporations. au-
thOIlzed 10y their charters to engage IN Inter-
state and International commerce.
Rrr4 a ronteud that CONGRESS
tect the freedom CT interstate commerce by any
means that are appropriate and arc lawful, and
not prohibited by the Constitution. X does
contend that no State corporation can stand ~
the way Of the enforcement OF the national
will legally expressed. What the government
particularly complains of-indeed, all that Il
complains Of here's tho existence Of a com
bination among the stockholders or comPeting
railroad companies which In violation OF the
act OF Congress restraints interstate commerce
tr,stse desianated to act for both companies
in REFRESHING free competition between tneno
FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT
The opinion then takes mp tho right OF Con
cress 20 enact such legislation as ;ho antitrust
law ana goes into an inquiry as 10 how Tar the
courts may go ga order to give effect 90 such an
act and to remedy the evils designed 20 he sup
dressed by IT. Quoting tho famous declaration
81 tho court in the case Of MrCuioch act. Mary
land that the government ordained and est1h-
Iished by the Constitution is. within the limits
OF the powers granted 20 II. "the government OF
all. that 81 represents and acts for al and IS
supreme within its sphere OF action Justice
Harlan said it was the intention OF legislation
81 this character TO prescribe a. rule for inter
state and international commerce which should
prevent vocation by combinations. couspiracias
or monopolies which restrain commerce. by de-
stroyiur or restricting competition. Ito then
added:
We say that Congress has prescribed such
rule. because I'm all the prior cases I'm this court
the Antitrust act has been construed as for
bidding any combination which Iy IT'S necessary
operation destroys or restricts free competition
among those engaged In interstate commerce.
competition in Interstate commerce was 70 To
strain such commerce. Now can this court IN
reason. say that such rule is prohibited by the
Constitution, or is not one that Congress could
appropriately prescribe when eNerting its power
under tho commerce clause Of the Constitution
Whether the free operation Of the normal laws
/ for trade and commerce is an economic ques-
tiou which this court need not consider or de-
termiue. Many persons, We may iudiciaily
/ know. OF wisdom. experience and learning he
liaye that such rule is more necessary iu these
/ days Of enormous wealth than 10 ever was in
any former period Of our history: indeed. that
/ the time has come when the public needs 20 be
protected against the eEacuons Of corporations
welding The power which attends the possession
/ Of unlimited capital
/ BE this as it may. Congress has. in effect.
1 recognized the rule OF free competition, when
/ declaring Illegal every com animation or con-
spiracy IN restraint Of interstate and iuterna-
tlonal commerce.
H. in the judgment Of Congress, the public
convenience or the general welfare will be best
l subserved when the natural laws Of competition
] are left undisturbed by those engaged IN inter
state commerce, that must be. for all the end
| Of the matter, If this IS to remain government
/ Il Z