The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-15

But even II the state allowed consolidation
or ore te Engaged in u
state commerce could lawf1lly combine bin .t and
of the constituent corporations, and, by Destroy
ing competition between them restrain COM
merce among the states and with foreign ma
tions.
Many citations were given in response
to this inquiry, all bearing upon the right
Of states to control their own domestic
commerce, but intended at the same time
to show the authority which the states
possess to guard the public against COM
binations which interfere with the opera
ton of the natural laws of competition
within state limits.
He then quoted the case Of Gibbons VS..
Ogden to the effect that "the power over
commerce with foreign nations and among
the several states is vested in congress
as absolutely as it would be in a. single
government having in its constitution the
same restrictions on the exercise of power
as are found in the constitution of the
United States.' ss- ~ .-.-,-s 81. go.
Power Of Congress.
With this quotation as a text, Justice
Harlan proceeded with an Interrogation.
rs there, them" he asked, "any escape
from the conclusion that, subject to such
limitations, the power Of congress over
interstate and international commerce Is
as full and complete as is the power Of
any state over it's domestic commerce."
IF state" he continued, may strike
down combinations that restrain it's do
| nestle commerce by destroying free COM
petition among those engaged in such
commerce, what power, except that of
congress, Is competent to protect the free
dom of interstate and international COM
| merce when assailed by a combination
that restraints such commerce by Sitting
| competition among those engaged in it?''
| 0i,,f t3o4 ,1o y
the inability Of the court to concur in the
view that the antitrust act is repugnant
to the constitution Of the United States.
The contention Of the defendants. he said,
| could not be sustained without, in effect, over.
the scope and validity Of the s antitrust ira as act
II, as the court has held, congress can strike
down combination between private persons OF
manteis, surely it ought not to be doubted that
blnation that Restraints Commerce. 's among 't the
states and with foreign nations as carried OF
in the exercise of public franchises. and en-
gagged In such commerce..
Merger OF All Roads.
Proceeding further, in propounding THU
line Of argument he said:
Indeed. If the contentious Of the defendants
are sound, why may not all the railway com
eharera in and
national commerce, enter into combination
such as the one here in question. and by tn,
device of a holding corporation obtain the alb
solute control turnout the entire country Of rate
for passengers and freight, beyond the powe
of congress to protect the public against thei
exactions? The argument in behalf Of the de
PENDANTS necessarily leads to such results, ant
places congress, altho invested by the people
, Of the United States with full authority to reg
ulate Interstate and international commerce, Il
. q condition Of utter helplessness, so far tn
protection Of the public against such combina
lions are concerned.
Coming again to the consideration Of tn
contention that interference by the fedora
government with the affairs Of state cor
5 poration will prevent the Securities com
pany from exercising its functions and vii
be an invasion Of the rights Of the stat
) under which the company was chartered
he said: 1--WE cannot conceive how It 1
possible for anyone to seriously contemp
) late such a proposition.
That View Rejected.
) Continuing on this line, he said:
Il We reject any such view Of the relations Q
the national government and the states CON