The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-15


amounts 10 declaring that the ownership
of stock in a railroad corporation is in it
self interstate commerce, and TO other sim
liar declarations. and. commenting on these,
he said: I'VE do not understand that the
government makes any such contentious
or takes any such positions as those state
mentS imply. 1t does not contend that Con-
gress may control the mere ownership of
stock in state corporation engaged in
interstate commerce. Ii does not contend
that Congress can control the organize ton
or mere ownership Of state corporations
authorized by their charters to engage in
interstate and interna tional commerce But
II does contend that Congress may protect
the freedom OF interstate commerce by any
means that are apr opriate and that are
lawful and not prohibited by the Constitu-
ton. 1t does contend that no state corpora
ton can stand in the way of the enforce
ment of the national will. legally expressed.
what the government particularly COM
plains or indeed all that 1t complains of
mere, Is the existence of combination
among the stockholders of competing rail-
road corporations, which in violation of the
act of Congress restraints interstate COM
merce through the agency Of common
corporate trustee designated to act for both
companies IN repressing free competition
between them
The opinion then takes up the right of
Congress TO enact such legislation as the
antitrust law, and goes into an inquiry as
TO how tar the courts may go in order to
give erect TO such an act and to remedy
the evils designed to be suppressed by it,
Quoting the famous declaration of the
court In the case of McCulloch VS.. Mary
land, that the government ordained and es-
tablished by the Constitution is, within the
limits of the powers granted to it, 1.-The
government of all, that it represents and
acts for all, and is supreme within its
sphere of action"
RULE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.
Justice Harlan said it was the intention
of legislation of this character to prescribe
a rule for interstate and international COM
merCp. which ofi Inv
combinations. conspiracies or monopolies
which destroy commerce by destroying or
restricting competition. He then added:
we say that Congress has prescribed such
rule, because in all prior cases in this
court the antitrust act has been construed
as 1orDidulng any combination which by it's
necessary operation DESTROYS or restricts
nee competition among those engaged in
interstate commerce, in other words that
10 destroy or restrict free competition in
interstate commerce was to restrict such
commerce Now can this court in reason
say tnat such rule Is prohibited by. the
Constitution is not one that Congress
could appropriately prescribe when exert
Ing Its power under the commerce clause of
Whether free operation OF the normal
laws OF competition is wise and
wholesome rule for trade and commerce
Is an economic question which this court
need not consider or determine Many per-
sons we may judicialy know of wisdom
experience and learning believe that such
rule is more necessary in these DAYS of
enormous wealth than ii ever was in anv
| former period of history; indeed, that
the time has come when the public needs
10 be protected against the exactions of
corporations welding the power which at
tends the possession of unlimited capital.
Be this as 1t may, Congress has. in effect,
| recognized the rule of free competition when
declaring illegal every combination or con-
! spiracy in restraint of interstate and inter-
national commerce. If, in the judgment of
general welfare will be best subserved when
the natural laws of competition left I'M
disturbed by those engaged in interstate
commerce, that must be, for all. the end
of the matter. If this is to remain govern
ment of laws and not of men,
Taking up the contention that railroad
| corporations created under the laws of a
| State can be consolidated only with the au-
! thority of that State. Justice Harlan said
| that he could not understand why this sug-
gestlon was made in this case, for" he
went on, there is pretense that the
! combination here in question was under the
authority of the States under whose laws
these railroad corporations were created
| In the form of an Interrogation he added:
| But even If the State allowed consolida-
ton 1t would not follow that the stockhold-
| ers of two or more State corporations en-
gagged in interstate commerce could law
| fully combine and form a distinct corpora
! ton to hold the stock of the constituent
| corporations, and, by destroying competition
| between them, restrain commerce among
| the States and with foreign nations"
POWER OVER COMMERCE.
| Many citations were given in response to
this inquiry, all bearing upon the right of
| States to control their own domestic COM
merce, but intended at the same time to
show the authority which the States pos
sess to guarantee the public against combi-
nations which interfere with the opera
ton of the natural laws of competition with
in State limits. He then quoted the case
of Gibbons VS.. Ogden to the effect that
1.-The power over commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States is
vested in Congress as absolutely il would
be In a single government having in its Con-
stitution the same restrictions on the ex-
erciSe of power far found in the Consti-
tuition of the United States"
! With this quotation as a text. Justice
| Harlan proceeded with 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 its domestic commerce? If a
| combinations that destroy its domestic COM
! merce by destroying free competition among
| those engaged in such commerce, what
power, except that of Congress, is COM
petent to protect the freedom of interstate
| and international commerce when assailed
by a combination that restraints such COM
| engaged in it?"
| At this point Justice Harlan announced
| the inability of the court to concur in the
| view that the antitrust act is repugnant
| to the Constitution of the United States.
| 1.-The contention of the defendants" he said,
I, could not be sustained without in effect
| overruling the prior decisions of this court
| as to the scope and validity of the anti
| trust act. Ii. as the court has held. Con-
| gress can strike down a combination be-
| tween private persons or private corpora
/ tons that restrain trade among the States
in iron pipe or in tiles. CRATES and mantels,
| surely ii ought not TO be doubted that Con-
| gress has power to declare Illegal a com
| bination that Restraints commerce among
the States and with foreign nations as car
| ried over the lines of competing railroad
companies in the exercise of public fran
chises and engaged in such commerce.
ALL NIGHT COMBINE.
Proceeding further, in propounding this
line of argument he said: Indeed, if the
contentious of the defendants are sound
| why may not all the railroad companies in
! the United States that are engaged, under
state charters, in interstate and internal
| commerce, enter into a combination such
as the one here in question. and by the de-
vice of a holding corporation, obtain the
absolute control through the entire country
! of rates for passengers and freight beyond
| the power of Congress to protect the public
! against their exactions? The argument in
| behalf of the defendants necessarily leads
to such results, and places Congress- al
| though invested by the people of the Unit
| ed States with full authority to regulate
/ interstate and International commerce In