The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-03-18
DECISION IN NORTHERN
SECURITIES CASE

Io11S SISdStQ IN interstate trade Or
commerce, and which would in that
way restrain such trade or
is made illegal by the act.
That the natural effect OF competi-
ton is to increase and an
agreement. whose direct effect is TO
prevent this play of competition, re-
strains instead OF promotes trade and
commerce.
THAT to vitiate a combination such
as the Act of Congress condemns, it
need not be shown that such combina-
ton. in fact. results OF will result in a
total suppression OF trade or in a COM
plete monopoly, but IL is only essential
to show that by it's necessary operation
it tends to restrain Interstate or inter-
national tradeo or commerce or end TO
create a monopoly in such trade or
m and to deprive the public Of
the advantages that flow from compe-
tition.
That the constitutional guarantee
or liberty or contract does not prevent
congress from prescribing the rule OF
free competition for those engaged in
Interstate and international COM
merce.
\ under its power to regulate
m among the several states and
foreign nations. Congress had authori-
ty to enact the statute in question"
Argument OF the Securities Company.
Justice Harlan tool up the conten-
tons of the counse for the Securities
Company, and in presenting them said
that underlying their argument. is
the idea that as the Northern Securi-
ties Company is a corporation and as
its acquisition of the stock of the rail-
road companies is not inconsistent with
the powers conferred by its charter,
the enforcement of the act of Congress
as against these corporations, will be
in its operation an Interference by the
national government with the internal
m of he states creating those
corporations"
To this objection Justice Harlan d.
rected a very large share OF his opinion.
returning frequently during the course
OF his remarks to a presentation of the
right OF federal control over state di-
rection in such cases. Speaking of n
states rights plea of the railroad rep
resentative he said:
The States Right Plea.
This view 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 the con-
tention that the antitrust act regulates
only commerce among the states and
in the foreign states. Viewed in that
light. the act must be respected. Bv
the explicit words Of the constitution
that instrument and the laws enacted
by Congress in pursuance OF it's provis-
ions, are the supreme law of the land
anything in the constitution or the.
laws of any state to the contrary not
withstanding.' Supreme
over the states, over the courts and
over the people Of the United States \
the source of all power under our gov
ernmental system in respect OF the Oh
jects for which the constitution was
ordained. An Act Of Congress-. con-
passed under it's power to
regulate among he states
and with foreign states. is binding
all as much so as If it were en-
bodied IN terms. in the constitution It
self. Every judicial officer. whether OF
a national or a state court. is under the
of an oath to so regard a
lawful enactment of Congress. Not
even a state. still less one of its artif-
cfal creatures, can stand in the way
of it's enforcement. If it were other
wise. the government and it's laws
might be Frustrated at the feet Of local
Justice Harlan brushed aside as
scarcely worth mentioning the conten-
ton on the part of the securities COM
pany that the question involved is the
right Of an individual to dispose Of his
stock in a state corporation and that
in such transactions the individuals
whose interests are involved. are SUBJ
iect only to the restraint of state laws
Justice Harlan also referred to the ar
gument that the position OF the govern
ment amounts to declaring that the
ownership of stock in a railroad cor
poration is in itself Interstate COM
merce, and to other similar declara-
tons, and commenting upon these. hn
said:
Congress a PROJECT Interstate Com
;S,arcc.
'Weado not understand that the gov
eminent makes anv such contentious
or takes any such positions as tho-n
imply. 1t docs not con+or1
that Congress can control the mero
ownership of stock in a state orpo-a-
ton, engaged in interstate comuerca
But it does contend that Congress NAV
protect the freedom Of interstate com
merce. bv anv means that ere appro
pirate and that are lawful and not pro-
hihited nv the constitution
The oninion then takes uo the right os
to enact such legislation az
the antitrust law and says:
"Whether the free onera.ion Of 49,
laws of conuetition IS n VS.
and wholesome rule for trace and com
' - ~ t'p'lDfiilt QUESTION "Nlc1
this Govt need rot consider o. deter
miro. MAN. ne-sons we may ir1ic'a1-
" know. of wisdom. experience anI
lee rnire. believe that such a rrr'a =
more necessary in these DAVIS Of ero--
nous wealth than II ever WIS IN ar
former nariod of our h~is'o-r. i~6e-1
that the time has come when the ruhT
reads to be protected against the ev-
~ corporatiors. WELDING tho
which attends the noesnssio, ~
unlimited ~caDita1. Re this &c i NAV
Congress has. in effect. recognized +hn
rule OF free competition. when dac1ar-
Illegal every combination or ron
spfracv in restraint IF Interstate an
international commerce. II. In tra
of tho Congress The ,ublio
service or the general welfare WI ~
best sr'Nearved when the rNtu-al ,awe
OF competition are left undisturhad nv
those engaged in Interstate commerce
that must he. for all. the end o. the
matter. II this is to remain a govern