Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-03-14
THE DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Holmes Contends That Law
Applied to Restraint of Trade

Justice Holmes read the dissenting opin-
ion. He construed the antitrust law as a
criminal statute, and declared that there
was nothing in it to indicate that 1t had
been enacted merely for the control of
large concerns, as is generally contended.
indeed, the law had not been understood
as applying to railroads until so construed
by the Supreme Court. The act he con-
tended, applies only to contracts and COM
plnatlons in restraint of trade and makes
no reference to competition
Logically construed, Justice Holmes said
todays decision should be followed by the
criminal prosecution of the parties at in
tereSt in this case.
Speaking of the general understanding
that the sherman law applied only to large
corporations, the justice said that this i'm
preston was breathed from every pore of
the statute, but that it's language did not
bear out the conclusion.
He thought this inference due to the size
OF ralirOad corporations. He took the posi-
tlon that there had been no attempt to
monopol1ze in this combination of the rail-
roads. and said that there could be no more
ob1ection to the purchase of the stock of
the Northern Pacific and the Great North
ern roads by the Securities company than
II bought by Mr.. Morgan himself.
ReIerring to the point of personal respon-
sfbllity, Justice Holmes said: II do not
expect to hear 1t maintained that Mr.. Nor
gan could be sent to prison for buying as
many shares as he liked of the Great
northern and Northern Pacific, even if he
Dougnt ooth at the same time and got more
imam nair the stock of each road"
Justice White also read a dissenting
opinion, taking up especially the power OF
congress to control commerce. Beginning
with an argument in support Of dissenting
opinions, he outlined the points involved
IN the case He referred to it's impor-
lance ana called attention to the fact that
o t.y TOUR members of the court. one less
than majority, had united in the opinion
OF the court He, then said that such prin-
cples as are laid down in that opinion are
destructive of government, destructive or
human liberty and, destructive of every
principle upon, which organized society de-
Ponds - - Wv
Justice White said he conceded to the full.
est extent the power of Congress over inter
state commerce. But this question he
SAID, Is ownership commerce-is the acuui
s!tlon and ownership of property interstat e
commerce?" Commerce undoubtedly is ira f.
nc ne went on, but 1t is something more
III IL De true that If ownership of railroads
may be controlled by the federal goyern-
ment. why may not all ownership be so con-
trolied?
If the principle here adopted be true he
commended. Mr.. Hills control of the rail-
roads in question could be taken from him.
tie could not accept this theory. but con-
,ehded LOT the right of the states to regu-
late matters of this character for them
selves For the federal government to take
the position that 1t can supervise in such
instances is for 1t to pull down the pillars
of the temple upon which 1t rests.
Justice White finished his dissenting opin-
ion at PAS. and Chief Justice Fuller after
stating that he and Justice Peckham con-
Cured in what Justices White and Holmes
had said. announced recess Of half an
hour for luncheon.