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

the Just Of the he
state is necessarily subject to the supreme law
Of the land; And yet the suggestion is made ID
terfering With the free course Of trade and
eommeree among the states in violation s Of an
Of Of the states. The federal court may not have
power to forfeit the charter Of the Securities es
be on It's
prohibit it from acquiring real estate nor dlmln-
All sad rs ike be
lated by the stats which created the company.
ionai i w iii t as lawfully expressed by congress
it may prevent that company In its capacity ,a as
out the purposes Of a combination formed in re-
strant OF interstate me
extraordinary If the court, in executing the act
of congress. could not lay hands upon that com.
done, will defeat the act Of congress.
Upon Ike GROUNDS the court without s III lntep .
proprate i orders, prevent the two competing rail-
road companies here involved, from cooperating
marce among the states. In short, the court
may make any order necessary. to bring about
bination that restraints Interstate commerce: All
this can be done without infringing In any degree
Of the dgme0t Seow only
no combination, howerful powerful, Is stronger
than the law or viii be permitted to avail itself a
which if done, would defeat a legal enactment Of
congress, is to attack the reserved rights of the
| states. 1t would mean that no device In evasion
is contrived, and no combination, by whosoever
law Of the land if such device or combination
by it's operation directly, restraints commerce e
| among the states or with foreign nations IN
violation Of the act Of congress. .
From Financial Point. -
Discussing the questions as to the effect
! of the antitrust law on financial interests,
Justice Harlan said the prediction had
been made that disaster to business and
widespread financial ruin would follow the
execution Of Its provisions, and
been made in connection with all preceding
cases under the act, ''but," he said, they
have not been verified" and continued:
It is the history Of monopolies in this countr!
and in England that predictions of ruin ar.
habitually made by them when it is attempted
by legislation, to restrain their operations ant
to protect the public against their exactions. II
as in sSs Use they seek S shelter tier
tutional guarantee of liberty Of contract. Blu
this court has heretofore adjudged that the ac
and that liberty Of contract did not involve
right to deprive the public of the advantage
Of free competition in trade de, and commerce Bu
in which the defendants indulge, it could no
refuse to respect the action Of the Legislative
branch of the government, If what it ha
done is within the limits Of its constitutions
power. .s..-E
The suggestions Of disaster to business have
we apprehend, their origin in the zeal Of partie
who are opposed to the policy underlying the &C
Of congress, interested in the result of thi
particular case; at any rate, the suggestions i'm
ply that the court may and ought to refuse tn
enforcement of the provisions of the act it, i
, its Judgment, congress was not wise in present.
ing as rule by which the conduct Of the inter
state and international commerce is to be gov
f sorm in restraint Of such Commerce. and tn
monopolising Or attempting to monopolze sue
commerce shall be Illegal These plainly ar
, questions as to the policy Of legislation whic
belong to the legislative department and thi
court has no function to supervise such legisla
ton from the standpoint of wisdom policy
Investment Feature.
Justice Harlan set aside as fallacious tn
argument that the acquisition of stock b,
the Northern Securities company was il
the nature of an investment, saying tina
there had been no actual investment ii
any substantial sense. In this connection
he referred to Mr.. Morgan as authority 70
the STATEMENT that the stock had bee
: transferred to the Securities co1npan