Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-03-15

ing commerce between the states tnat
may not be made a crime by the finding
OF jury or a court The personal ascend
ency OF one man may be such that it
would give to his advice the effect of a
command, If he owned but single share
in each road The tendency of his pres
ence in the stockholders meetings might
be certain to prevent competition and
thus his advice if not his mere existence,
become crime"
Intention of the Antitrust Law.
Referring to the popular impression con-
corning the intention of the antitrust law.
Justice Holmes said
There is a natural feeling that somehow
or other the statute meant to strike at
combinations great enough to cause Just
anxiety on the part of those who love their
country more than money, while it viewed
such little ones as 1 have supposed with
just indifference. This motion, it may be
said, somehow breathes from the pores of
s ,9e act, although 1t seems to be contra
d1cted in every way by the words in de-
tall And 1t has occurred to me that it
might be that when combination reached
a certain size 1T might have attributed to
IL more or the character of a monopoly
merely by virtue of it's size than would be
attributed to smaller one. | am quite
clear that 1T is only in connection with
monopolies that size could play any part.
But my answer has been indicated al
ready. In the first place size in the case
of railroads is an inevitable incident, and
II 1t were an objection under the act the
Great Northern and the Northern Pacific
already We're too great and encountered
the law. In the next place, in the case of
railroads it is evident that the size of the
com ton is reached for other ends than
those which would make them monopoles
The combinations are not formed for the
purpose of excluding others from the field.
Finally, even a small railroad will have
the same tendency to exclude others from
Its narrow area that great ones have to ex-
clude others from a greater one, and the
statute attacks the small monopolies as
well as the great. The very words of the
act make such a distinction impossible in
this case and it has not been attempted in
express terms
He did not expect, he said, to hear it con-
tended that Mr.. Morgan could be sent to
jail for buying in his individual capacity
shares of stock of the two railroad compa-
MES, even If he bought them both at the
same time and got more than half of the
stock of each road Yet" he said, unless
L am entirely wrong in my understanding
OF what a combination in restraint of trade
means. then the same monopoly may be at
tempted and effected by an individual, and
is made equally Illegal in the case by sec
tfon two He discussed at some length
the effect OF a partnership, and said that
such combination is not a contract or
combina ton in restraint of trade between
the partners unless words were to be given
a new meaning for the purposes of this act
and he contended that there had been no
reference to the suppression of competition
in the trans Mississippi decision. :" To sup
dress competition in that way he said is
one thing; TO suppress it by fusion is an
other Continuing In this line, he said:
The law says nothing about connection,
tracts or combinations in restraint of trade
and such contracts or combinations derive
their character restraining trade from
other features than the suppression of COM
all