The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-15
the several, States or: with foreign na-

or interstate. and international trade C.. commerce that are unreasonable in their nature but Is directed against all direct restraints. reasonable or u unreasonable. imposed by any combination, conspiracy or monopoly upon such trade or com That railroad carriers engaged in in- terstate or international trade or com merce are embraced by the act.
 The combinations even among private manufacturers or dealers whereby inter- state or international commerce is re- strained are equally embraced by the act.
 That Congress has the power to .es- tabiish rules by which interstate and in- ternational commerce shall be governed and by the anti-trnst act has prescribed the rule of free competition among those engaged in such commerce
 That every combination or conspiracy which would extinguish competition be- tween otherwise competing railroads en-' gagged In interstate trade or commerce and which would in that way. restraa such trade or commerce.. is made illegal by. the act. S-.. 2. . ...s:.
 Effect of Competition. e.. .,s
 That the natural effect of competiti m Is to, increase commerce and an agree ment whose direct effect is to prevent this play of competition res;rains in- stead O. promotes trade and commerce.
 That to vitiate a combination such as the act of Congress condemns 1t need not be shown that such combination tn fact results or will result in a total sup precision of trade or in a complete mon. opoly but 1t is only essential to show that by its. necessary operation 1t tends to restrain interstate or International trade or commerce or tends to create Q monopoly in such trade or commerce. and to deprive the public of the adyant- ages that flow from free competition }t
 That the constitutional guarantee of liberty 0! contract does not prevent Con- gress from prescribing the rule of free competition. for those engaged in inter ; state and international commerce.. :.
 That under its power to regulate com merce among the several states and: foreign nations Congress had authority to enact the statute in question,
 -,s. Company's Contentious.
 Justice Harlan took up the contentious of the counsel for the Securities Com pany, and in presenting them said. That, underlying their argument Is the Idea that. as the Northern Securities Com pany is a corporation. and as it's acquisi. ton. of the stock of the railroad com. panies is not Inconsistent with the powers conferred by its charter, the enforcement of the act of Congress against these cor porations will be in its operation an in- terference by the national government with the internal commerce of the states creating those corporations. V
 To this objection Justice Harlan direct ed very large share of his opinion. re- turning frequently during the course of his remarks to presentation Ioe the rights of federal control over State 'dlrce- ton in such caseG Speaking of the States rights plea of the railroad repre- sentatives, he said: -s.... . i.
 This view does not impress us. there is no reason to suppose that Congress had any purpose to interfere with the internal affairs of the state: nor is taere any ground whatever for the contention that the anti-truat act regulates their domestic commerce. By its very terms the act regulates only commerce among the States and in the foreign States. Viewed in that light the act must be respected By the explicit words, of tho constitution that instrument and the laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of its provisions are the supreme flaw of the land. anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contra. ry hstanding.-supreme over the States, over. the courts and. even the people of. the United States the source V tenn ir respect of the objects for which the Constitution was ordained. ', $, x ! ,..'',: Act of Congress Supreme
 ''An 'act" of Congress- constitutionaiIy passed under its power 10 regulate laws In the States Is binding or us ali as much so as if it' were embodied in terms in the Constitution itself. Every JndJ- clal officer.n whether of national or a State court. Is under the obligations of an oath. to 60 regard a lawfu. enactment of Congress. Not even State. still less one of its artificial creatures, can stand in the way e it's enforcement If 1t were otherwise the government and its laws must be prostrated at the feet os the local authority"
 He brushed aside as scarcely worth mentioning the contention oe the part of the Securities Company that the oues. ton Involved !s the right o. an individual to dispose O: his stock }ir a State corpora tien and that in such transactions the individuals whose. interests are involved are subject only to the restraint of State laws. Merely referring to those obJec- tons. he said: '. t-
 Tt is unnecessary In tA!s case to con. sider such abstract general questions. The court" he vent or. '.seed not con. cern themselves 1T t. They are not hkre to be examined and, determined, and may as well be lief, for consideration i:: some cases necessarily involving their .dete-m- nation" '....t, ... -; Governments Position. --
 Justice Harlan. also referred to the ar- gurnent that the position of the Govern ment Amounts 70 declaring that the own ership of a stock company :r q railroad corporation Is in- i:seif interstate com fnerce and 10 othe. similar declarations, and, commenting upop these. he said,
 We do TO: understand .hat :he Gov ernrn:nen: makes any such .contentions or takes any such positions as those state- meats imply. II does not contend that Congress may control the mere ownership of stock !E a State corporation engaged i3 interstate commerce. It does rot con tend that Congress can control the o:- ganizatioH or mere ownership of the State corporations authorized by the:r charters 10 engage in interstate and i3- ternational commerce, But 1t does con- tend that Congress may protect the :ree- dom of interstate commerce by any means that are appropriate and that are lawful and not prohibited by the Consti- fulton. It does contend that no State corporation car stand in the way of the enforcement of the national will. legally expressed. What tine Government partic- ulafiy complains of indeed all that it' complains ot here. Is the existence of combination among the stockho!ders Of com pet!ag railroad companies which, in violation of the act of Congress, restrains interstate commerce through the agency Of common corporate trustee designated