The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-03-15

authority"
 Brushed Them Aside.
 He brushed aside as scarcely worth mentioning the contention on the part of the Securities company that the question | involved is the right of an individual to dispose of his stock in state corpora tion and that in such transaction the in- dlviduals whose interests are involved are subject only to the restraint of state laws. Merely referring to those objections he said
 ''It Is unnecessary in this case to con- slider such abstract general questions.
 "rhe court" he went on. need not concern themselves in it. They are not here to be examined and determined and may as well be left for consideration in some cases necessarily involing their de- termination"
 Justice Harlan also referred to the ar gument that the position of the govern ment amounts to declaring that the ownership of stock in railroad corpora ton Is in itself interstate commerce, and to other similar declarations and com mentlng upon these he said:
 We do not understand that the gov ernment makes any such contentious or takes any such positions as those state ments imply It does not contend that congress may control the mere ownership of stock in Q state corporation engaged In interstate commerce. It does not con- tend that congress can control the organ ization or mere ownership of the state cor- porations authorized by their charters to engage in interstate and international commerce. But 1t does contend that con gross may protect tho freedom of inter- ,, state commerce by any means that are appropriate, and that are lawful and not prohibited by the constitution. It does contend that no state corporation can stand in the way of the enforcement of the national will, legally expressed. What the government particularly complains of, indeed, all that 1t com- plains of here. is the existence of com bination among the stockholders of com peting railroad companies which, in viola ton of the act of congress, restraints ln- terstate commerce through the agency of common corporate trustee designated to act for both companies in represslng free competition between them"
 Takes Up Right of Congress.
 The opinion then takes up the right of congress to enact sucn Legislation as the antitrust law, and goes Into an in- qutry 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 SUD-
 
 ton of the court in the case of McCullooh vs. Maryland that the government or dained and established by the constitution Is within the limits of the powers grant ed to 1t, the government of all; that 1t represents and it's acts for all, and Is su- preme within It's sphere of action," Jus tice Harlan said 1t was the intention of legislation of this character to prescribe a rule for interstate and international pn 1yiO ton by combination, conspiracles or monopo- lies, which restrain commerce by destroy ing or restricting competition. He then added:
 We say that congress has prescribed such a rule because in all the prior cases in this court the antitr act has been construed as forbidding any combination which by It's necessary operations destroys or restricts free competition among those engaged in interstate commerce; in other words, that to destroy or restrict free competition In interstate commerce was to restrain such commerce.
 Now can this court, in reason, say that such a rule is prohibited by the con- stitution, or is not one that congress could appropriately prescribe when ex- ertng its power under the commerce clause of the constitution? Whether the | free operation of the normal laws of com | petition is a wise and wholesome rule for l trade and commerce, is an economic ques- | tion which this court need not consider or determine Many persons, we may ju- dcially know of wisdom, experience and learning, believe that such rule Is more necessary in these days of enormous wealth, than 1t ever was in any former period of our history; indeed, that the time has come when the public needs to be protected against the eXactions of cor porations yielding the power which at- tends the possession of unlimited capital.
 Has Recognized the Rule.
 Be this as it may, congress has in ef- feet recognized the rule of free competi- ton when declaring illegal every combina- ton or conspiracy in restraint of inter- state and international commerce. If, in the judgment of congress the public con venience or the general welfare will be best subserved when the natural laws of competition are left undisturbed by those engaged in interstate commerce, that must be for all the end of the matter if this is to remain government or laws and not of men,"
 Taking up the contention that railroad corporations created under the laws of a state can only be consolidated with the consent of that state, Justice Harlan said he could not understand why this sug- pestion was made In this case, for" he went on, there Is no pretense here that the combination here was under the au- thority of the states under whose laws these railroad corporations were credited. Ha then quoted the case of Gibbins vs. Ogden to the effect that the power over