The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-03-15
NORTHERN SECURITIES
DECISION HANDED DOWN

N~NaVAN " ~ ~
Continued from Page. -
trade or commerce that are unreason-
able ia their nature. but is directed
against all direct restraints. reasonable
or unreasonable. imposed by any COM
Dnation, conspiracy OF monopoly upon
such trade or commerce.
That railroad carriers engaged in in
terstate or international trade or COM
meree are embraced by the act.
/ That combinations even among pri-
Fate manufacturers or dealers whereby
/ interstate or international commerce is
restrained are equally embraced by the
act
That congress has the power to es-
tablish rules by which interstate and
! international commerce shall be gov
erned and by the antitrust act has
prescribed the rule of free competition
among those engaged in such COM
I merce.
Illegal Conspiracy.
/ That every combination or con-
spiracy which would extinguish COM
petition between otherwise competing
railroads engaged in interstate trade or
/ commerce. ana which would In that
way restrain such trade or commerce,
is made illegal by the act.
That the natural effect Ct COMPETE
ton is to Increase commerce, and an
! agreement whose direct effect is to pre-
vent this play OF competition, restraints
instead Of promotes trade and COM
/ uerce.
THAT to vitiate a combination, such
as the act of congress condemns. it need
not be shown that such combination
in fact, results or viii result in total
/ suppression of trade or in a complete
| monopoly, but il is only essential TO
| show that by its necessary operation il
tends TO restrain interstate or inter-
national trade or commerce. or tends
ito create monopoly in such trade or
commerce and to deprive the public OF
the advantages that flow from free
competition.
| That the constitutional guarantee Of
liberty of contract does not prevent
congress from prescribing the rule of
free competition for those engaged in
Interstate and international commerce.
That under it's power to regulate
commerce among the several states and
foreign nations congress had authority
TO enact the statute in question"
States Rights Plea.
Speaking of the states rights plea of
the railroad representatives Justice
Harlan said:
/ NE view NVtS itOt AluUitrS uE.
There is no reason TO suppose that
| congress had any purpose to interfere
| with the internal affairs Of the state,
nor for the contention that the anti
trust act regulates their domestic COM
merce.
Justice Harlan brushed aside az
p! 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 transa ctiOns the individuals
| whose interests are involved are sub
Ject only to the restraint of state laws.
Justice Harlan also referred to the
| argument that the position of the gov
ernment 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 on these, he
said:
Congress Can Protest
I'VE do not understand that the gov
| eminent makes any such contentious
or takes any such positions as those
statements imply II does not contend
that congress may control the mere
ownership of stock in a state corpora
ton, engaged in interstate commerce.
IT does not contend that congress can
control the organization or mere
ownership of state corporations,
authorized by their charters TO engage
in interstate and international com
merce. But il does contend that con-
gress may protect the freedom of in
| terstate commerce by any means that
are appropriate and that are lawful
and not prohibited by the constitu-
ton"
The opinion then takes up the rights
of congress to enact such legislation
as the antitrust law and goes into an
inquiry 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
suppressed BY it.
Justice Harlan said il was the inten-
ton of legislation of this character to
prescribe a rule for interstate and in
/ ternational commerce which should
/ prevent vexation by combinations. con-
| spiracies or monopOlies which restrain
! commerce by destroying or restricting
! competition. He then added:
Combination Forbidden.
I'VE say that congress has prescribed
| such a rule because in all the prior
/ cases in this court the antitrust act
has been construed as fOrbidding any
| combination which by its necessary op-
/ Grafton destroys or restricts free COM
/ petition among those engaged i'm inter-
| state 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 pro-
| hibited by the constitution or is not
! one that congress could appropriately
/ prescribe when eXerting it's power un-
! der the commerce clause Of the cOnsti-
I tution?"
Taking uo the contention that rail
| read corporations created under the
/ laws OF a state can be consolidated
1 only with the authority of the state,
Justice Harlan said that he could not
/ understand why this suggestion was
1 made I'm this case For" he went on.
| there is no pretense that the cOmbin-
! alton here in question was under the
Z authority Of the states under which
laws these railroad corporations were
/ created.
But even If the state allowed con-