Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-03-15
TUESDAY EVENING, MAR. 10, 1904.
THE SUPREME COURT yesterday, as

cided the Northern SECURITIES case III
favor of the government and against the
company. The merging of two COM
peting lines of railroads is declared to be
illegal. and the antitrust law is affirmed
beyond the possibility of question. This
action of the court is among the most
important, in all its bearings, that has
ever been taken by the highest tribunal
in the land. 1t settles the question OF
trust regulation in behalf of the general
public and. with one blow, demolishes
the power of the combinations to control
trade and stihe competition. The prin-
ciples of law applied in the case under
consideration govern all combinations
which have the effect of restraining
trade, and place all the trusts under con-
troll of law already upon the statute
books. Justice Harlan handed down
the opinion of the court, but four OF the
justices dissented from the FIVE conStitu-
ting the majority, as was the case IN the
famous insular cases three years ago.
Division in the court was due to
difference of opinion as to the right OF
federal control of State corporations.
The majority opinion proceeded on the
theory that Congress has right, under
the constitution, to control interstate
commerce, no matter by whom conduct
ed. while the minority, or dissenting
opinion. was based on the theory that, In
the present case, the effort is to regulate
ownership of railroad stocks by State
corporations, and that such ownership is
not interstate traffic. One of the men,
bers of the court who cast his vote with
the majority entertained opinions OF his
own. which fact rendered the division
all the more marked and interesting.
This was Justice Brewer, who, while he
concurred in the result, announced In
an independent opinion of his own that
he held the view that previous anti
trust decisions had been more sweeping
than was justified. -Four of the nine
justices dissented outright. These were
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices White,
Peckham and Holmes. The victory of
the government in the case is one OF the
law and the people against the rapacity
and greed of combinations. 1t is also
distinct defeat for Mr.. j. Pierpont Nor
gan and his theories of consolidation
and absorption as a cure for the evils
of competition, destructive rate wars
and endless fights in the stock mar
ket. such as that which resulted in the
formation of the Securities Company.
The decision, as read by Justice Harlan,
gives the widest Interpretation to the
law, and gives to the conclusions reached
the strongest bearing upon all other
trusts. whether similar to or different
from the Northern Securities Company,
e il can be shown that they too are in
restraint Of trade or have the effect OF
destroying competition. The broad
declaration of the court is that neither
the rights of individuals nor their in
tentions are to be considered In con-
structing the statue. All that is neces
sary is to show that they come within
the actual provision or intention of law,
by placing restraints upon interstate
commerce. That this applies to the
coal trust, the Standard Oil Company,
the beef trust and all the other combi-
nations which have established monOp-
oplies by destroying competition the
court leaves no room for doubt. Nor
are its utterances less emphatic regard
ing the powers of Congress to make
laws governing interstate commerce.
In this respect. the court has apparently
had in mind the possibility Of further
legislation to place the trusts under COM
plete control, and it has almost antici-
pated the possibility of embarrassment
upon the part of Legislators in order to
clear the way for them. Congress and
the Constitution are supreme in all
matters relating to commerce between
the States, nor can any State law give
validity to a corporation attempting to
do business in defiance of these authori-
ties, nor can the enforcement of the law
be evaded through any plea of corporate
or individual rights, no matter upon
what basis of common law it rests.
The effect of the decision will not only
cause the institution of proceedings
against other trusts, but 1t should pre-
vent the organization of new combina-
tons. Like every other law, the decision
demonstrates the antitrust law requires
enforcement to make it effective, but the
government has the machinery needed
for its enforcement, and it will be the
fault of government officers if the law is
violated now. What plans the Depart
ment of Justice has formed for proceed
ings against other combinations ale not